Oral Answers to Questions

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships

Dari Taylor: What steps his Department is taking to support the development of crime and disorder reduction partnerships.

Yvette Cooper: Local authorities have a statutory duty to work with the police and other agencies in local crime and disorder reduction partnerships. More than a quarter of neighbourhood renewal funds are spent on local crime and community safety projects supporting the work of the partnerships.

Dari Taylor: The Safer Stockton partnership, which has received beacon status, has reduced house burglaries by 13 per cent. over three years—an excellent achievement that has been delivered by street wardens. How will that body of excellent people be funded in future?

Yvette Cooper: I congratulate the Safer Stockton partnership, which was highly rated by the beacon council panel. My hon. Friend is right to say that neighbourhood wardens and street wardens are making a huge difference—in fact, the independent evaluation found that there was a 28 per cent. reduction in crime in the first wave of areas in which wardens were used. Of that first wave, 80 per cent. have found continuing funding, and we are examining ways in which to expand the programme further.

Eric Pickles: It is no use the Minister saying that she is examining other funding methods. The wardens were introduced in a pilot scheme, which was extended, local authorities such as Stockton were encouraged to take them on, and the Prime Minister, in extending the schemes, said that they were very popular. Then, the Government pull the rug out from under local authorities and withdraw the funding. Is not that the clearest example of the Government imposing burdens on local authorities and transferring public expenditure by way of their favourite stealth tax, the council tax?

Yvette Cooper: I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the Commons. I hope that he is recovering well. I am only sorry that he is continuing to talk nonsense. As he well knows, neighbourhood warden programmes have been extremely successful and, as I said, 80 per cent. of schemes across the country are already picking up continuing funding. He talks about burdens on local government, but what sort of burden would be imposed by a £2.5 billion cut in the local government budget? I wonder whether Conservative spokesmen actually speak to each other. The hon. Gentleman ought to talk to the shadow Chancellor and get to the bottom of the funding problem. It is true that wardens need continued funding; we are providing that from various sources, whereas his party would cut it.

Derek Wyatt: I have met my local superintendent, Alasdair Hope, to discuss the crime and disorder reduction partnership in my constituency. The police have raised the planning impact assessment with me and want to know whether pressure can be brought to bear on new development. Four thousand new houses have been built in the area in the past five years, and a further 9,000 are due. If housing estates were better designed, crime would decrease. How can we improve the system?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right to say that well designed public spaces and estates can have a big impact in terms of preventing crime. Working with the Home Office, we have produced guidance on designing out crime, and I encourage his local partnership to have a look at that guidance.

Sustainable Communities Plan

Andrew Selous: What action he intends to take following the East of England regional assembly's comments on the sustainable communities plan.

Nick Raynsford: The Government are grateful for the work undertaken by the East of England regional assembly in assessing the infrastructure requirements needed to deliver the sustainable communities plan as part of its regional planning work. My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Rooker met representatives of the East of England regional assembly last Thursday, 17 June, and will write to them with a detailed response to their proposals once the outcome of the spending review is known.

Andrew Selous: Instead of trying to solve the housing problems of London and the south-east by ramming a vast amount of housing into only four areas around London, will the Government consider trying to spread housing growth more widely across the region, and in particular nearer to where people work, which would cut pollution and journey times? In addition, will the Minister pay serious attention to the 300,000 empty homes in and around London? Such an approach would win praise from the East of England regional assembly and the 17,000 of my constituents who have asked the Government to think again.

Nick Raynsford: The Government are not seeking to ram housing down the throats of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. We are responding to their concerns which, I remind him, he highlighted in the House on 5 March when he said:
	"I am well aware, as the local Member of Parliament, that there is a great housing need in my constituency . . . week after week, my constituents come to me because they are unhoused or very inadequately housed."—[Official Report, 5 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1216.]
	I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman does not welcome the action that the Government are taking to meet the needs of his constituents.

Patrick Hall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there appears to be a conflict between the position of the East of England regional assembly, which accepts the argument of the Barker review, and the need to implement those proposals somewhere? Does he not agree that the growth areas represent an opportunity to obtain balanced communities through positive planning?

Nick Raynsford: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's positive and constructive approach to the need to ensure that we meet the unquestionable pressures throughout the south-east and the growth areas for new housing. The need for those homes, however, has to be met in a sustainable way, and it is important that that is accompanied by infrastructure investment. We are seeking to ensure that that happens, and all the discussions that are under way aim to achieve that.

Bernard Jenkin: The vast majority of my constituents in North Essex have no idea that the East of England regional assembly exists. When they hear that it is going to start imposing housing targets for massive house building in my constituency they will be angry that it is just an extension of the right hon. Gentleman's Department. Why is the Government's regional policy so confused? One minute the Deputy Prime Minister claims that learning and skills councils will be the responsibility of regional government, but then that is slapped down by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. The Deputy Prime Minister wants a Barnett formula for regional government, but of course the Treasury will not give him one. Why cannot a regional assemblies Bill be published as quickly as possible so that it can be debated, instead of the Government spending all the taxpayer's money on propaganda to promote regional government, which probably nobody wants?

Nick Raynsford: It is difficult to know which part of the hon. Gentleman's rambling question was his priority, but our commitment is to give people in the northern regions choice about whether they have an elected regional assembly or not. His party has never given choice to people—it abolished tiers of government without giving people any say in the matter. We believe in democracy, and we believe in giving people a choice.

Phyllis Starkey: A wide range of organisations in Milton Keynes recognise the positive approach in the sustainable communities plan to expanding Milton Keynes, meeting the undoubted housing needs of the local population and making sure that housing is affordable. In particular, may I pass on to my right hon. Friend the congratulations of the Milton Keynes forum, the only civic—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady can do that in writing.

Nick Raynsford: Once again, I agree about the importance of a constructive approach to meeting the need for development in a sustainable way that protects the environment and improves people's quality of life. That is our commitment, and I certainly welcome all the work in Milton Keynes to achieve our common objectives.

Affordable Housing (North-West)

John Pugh: What figures the Government have collated on the availability of affordable housing in coastal towns in the north-west.

Keith Hill: The availability of affordable housing is primarily a matter for local housing authorities, although the Government collate a range of data on housing stock condition, new completions and vacancies at local authority level.

John Pugh: The Minister must recognise that there is a growing crisis in affordable housing in successful resorts such as Southport. That is a problem for first-time buyers, and it is also causes problems for the town's economic expansion. Does he acknowledge that there is now a case for looking closely at regional planning guidance and the housing moratorium?

Keith Hill: There is no moratorium. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that over the past 10 years house building in the north-west region has exceeded demand by 50 per cent., so it is reasonable to try to relate new housing development to need. However, new Government funding of nearly £500 million over the next two years will deliver 9,500 homes for rent and sale, as well as improvements to existing houses in the north-west. I am sure that Sefton metropolitan borough council, Southport's local authority, will benefit from that new money for the purposes of affordable housing.

Lindsay Hoyle: While recognising the needs of Southport and the coastal towns, my right hon. Friend must not forget that nearby towns like Chorley, which are affected in the same way, ought to be part of the same package. Will he consider using the Government-owned land in Chorley for low-cost housing?

Keith Hill: I am aware of my hon. Friend's serious concerns about the matter on behalf of his constituents in Chorley, which he has raised in many representations to me. I anticipate that Chorley will benefit from the extra package of funding that I mentioned earlier, and we expect new planning guidance for the north-west region to commence towards the end of this year.

Postal Voting

Patsy Calton: What reviews are being undertaken of the experience of the all-postal ballot pilots in the June elections; and if he will make a statement.

John Prescott: The Electoral Commission is evaluating the pilots and will report in September. The pilots' achievement is, however, already clear. In the four regions holding all-postal ballots, more than twice as many people voted as did in the Euro elections in 1999, an increase of nearly 3   million voters. Turnout in the local elections also increased. As the House knows, the Electoral Commission is reviewing, under the statutory requirements, the results of those four pilots and will report to the House. Unlike the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who yesterday told the House that he did not care what the Electoral Commission thought, I am sure the rest of us in the House welcome the opportunity to study the commission's findings. Finally, I am sure the House will want to congratulate all the returning officers, their staff and the Royal Mail on rising to the challenge.

Patsy Calton: Will the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledge that there is a tension between increasing the turnout, which we all welcome, and forcing people to vote by a method that they did not choose? Many constituents in Cheadle have indicated to me that they are unhappy about being forced to vote by post, and that they wish to be able to engage in voting at the local polling station, which gave them a sense of civic occasion that is lacking from filling in a form at home.

John Prescott: The turnout in the hon. Lady's constituency increased. In 1999 the turnout for the Euro election was 26 per cent. In 2004, in the last elections, it was 43 per cent.—a 65 per cent. increase. Whatever the tensions to which she refers, I do not believe for a moment that people were forced to vote in that manner. They turned out in their extra hundreds of thousands to vote. That was the purpose of the exercise and we achieved it.

Helen Jackson: Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that in Sheffield the postal voting pilot was extremely well managed, and was received universally throughout the city? We had a 100 per cent. increase in turnout compared with the last local elections. For many younger people, that will have been the first time that they had ever seen a ballot paper, and they used it. The one thing that my right hon. Friend might consider is making one or two local positions available for people to put their ballot papers on polling day. Apart from that, the system worked beautifully smoothly.

John Prescott: My hon. Friend rightly points out that there was a successful turnout. When the Electoral Commission recommended all-postal pilots, all parties in the House agreed. Nobody disagreed; everybody voted for the principle. More people participated in the elections than before—a very considerable increase. We are actively considering my hon. Friend's recommendation, but we should wait for the report from the Electoral Commission, which is reviewing the process and will report in September. I am sure that the House will give serious consideration to its recommendations, and not do as the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton did yesterday, when he said:
	"I do not care what the Electoral Commission said."—[Official Report, 22 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 1208.]

Edward Davey: The Deputy Prime Minister knows that the all-postal ballots were extremely expensive for council tax payers, not least because of the cost of specialised printing, the huge amounts of overtime, and postage. What estimate has he made of the extra cost of the experiment to council tax payers, and how much would have been saved if he had listened to the advice of the Electoral Commission?

John Prescott: The hon. Gentleman's point about expense surprises me, because pilot experiments have occurred since 2000, and he did not complain about expense in the four years in which more than 200 all-postal voting experiments occurred. It would be a lot cheaper if people did not vote, but if that is the Liberal position, I disagree with it.

Ann Cryer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the problems in the Bradford district emanated from registration rather than from the all-out postal ballot? Is he prepared to chat with my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) and for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) and me about the problems, as we perceive them, in the Bradford district?

John Prescott: I understand my hon. Friend's point, and she has made a number of public statements about the matter. However, I recommend that she talks to the Electoral Commission, which is reviewing the circumstances. I am always open to discussing hon. Members' fears, but the Electoral Commission, which will issue a report that the House will debate, will best address my hon. Friend's concerns.

George Osborne: Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that this autumn's regional referendums will be postponed if the Electoral Commission identifies problems with the all-postal ballot?

John Prescott: The orders relating to the referendums will be laid before the House very shortly, and the referendums will take place. I shall reaffirm what we said last night: if the Electoral Commission makes it clear in its report that it believes the ballots to be unsafe, we will reconsider the voting process, but until we receive that report we will proceed with the orders. We intend to hold the referendums and give people in the north the chance to decide whether they want their own assembly.

Clive Soley: Will my right hon. Friend tell me the number of letters of apology that he has received from editors and journalists who told us that the election would be chaotic and that it would involve court cases? Is it the same old story of all the news that is fit to print, or has he received, as he ought to have done, letters of apology?

John Prescott: The press whipped up the atmosphere, often with little evidence, and I have asked the editors whether they have sent evidence to either the police or the Electoral Commission. My hon. Friend will wait a long time to get apologies out of the British press.

Caroline Spelman: Will the Deputy Prime Minister accept that yesterday's concession by the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), which The Times has portrayed as something that may wreck the regional polls, is surely proof that, while he doggedly pursues the route to regionalisation, Government Front Benchers are increasingly looking for the exit signs?

John Prescott: That is nonsense. A report in The Times does not guarantee that a story is true. [Interruption.] There are many examples of The Times getting something wrong and not apologising. When The Times first raised its concerns about electoral offences, it committed an electoral offence itself by reporting an estimate from the exit polls. The hon. Lady should not necessarily believe what she reads in The Times—that statement is unfortunate, but it happens to be true. As in the cases of Scotland, Wales and London, the Government are united on giving people in the northern areas of this country a chance to say whether they want an elected assembly, and I hope that they vote for that. I assume that the Opposition will change their position, as they have done on every other occasion. To begin with, they oppose regional assemblies, but they accept them when people say that they want them.

Housing (Gatwick)

Laura Moffatt: When he expects to make an announcement about the future for housing development around Gatwick airport.

Phil Hope: Decisions about the extent and location of housing developments are, in the first instance, for the local planning authority concerned. Decisions on whether to lift directions that restrict Crawley borough council from granting planning permissions for housing development on some of the land near Gatwick will be taken once final announcements have been made on the location of new airport facilities in the south-east.

Laura Moffatt: The Minister knows that Gatwick airport is a difficult issue, but does he agree that West Sussex county council's continual peddling of the idea that we want to concrete over the south-east of England is a dereliction of its duty? We must ensure that all the people in West Sussex have good quality housing.

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is right. She is well known for her energetic efforts in pressing hard for more affordable homes for people in her constituency. There are other sites. For example, there is one in nearby Horley, where up to 2,600 new houses have been allocated for development in the emerging local plan. I urge the borough council and West Sussex county council to work closely with the Government office for the south-east to prepare an action plan that will deliver more homes for young families in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Sport

Andy Burnham: What assessment he has made of the potential of sport to help regenerate deprived communities.

Yvette Cooper: Sport can play an important role in renewal programmes by building community links, improving health and engaging young people in popular activities. The Department has recently published reports that examine the links between sport and regeneration and provide guidance for local programmes.

Andy Burnham: Leigh sports village is a fine example of how to regenerate a deprived former coalfield area with first-class sports and education facilities. It carries the hopes of thousands of people in Leigh who have been let down many times previously. The plan is currently with the Department in a submission from the Government office for the north-west. Will my hon. Friend listen to the 95 per cent. of people in Leigh who support the scheme, give it the green light without a damaging delay and let us get on with rebuilding a better future for Leigh?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend knows that we cannot comment on planning applications that are going through the process. We are keen to support more sport in the neighbourhood renewal areas and in neighbourhood renewal programmes as a valuable way in which to get local people, especially young people, involved in community life.

Bob Russell: The Under-Secretary will agree that the provision of such facilities is good for deprived communities. Does she also agree that the cost of admission for the use of those facilities can be a disincentive? What advice does she give local authorities to encourage greater use of facilities by people in deprived communities?

Yvette Cooper: Local partnerships are pursuing various programmes, sometimes for reduced admissions in specific areas. The programmes are often for school children to encourage the use of sports facilities. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that can make a big difference in deprived areas and we would encourage more of it. There are some great programmes, such as the street games programme, which we would like to be developed in other areas. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should keep the noise down.

Dennis Skinner: Does the Under-Secretary realise that Bolsover fits neatly the criteria of being a deprived community, mainly because every single pit was shut in the 1980s and 1990s and some of the miners' welfare facilities went with those closures? Now we have a programme for brand new swimming baths in Bolsover, but we need some money and help. Will she have a word with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to ensure that we get the show on the road in the next couple of years?

Yvette Cooper: I am happy to look at the proposal that my hon. Friend mentions. He is right that we have had decades of under-investment and decline in the coalfield areas. The pits were shut and nothing was put in their place. We have now had seven years of good investment in our coalfield communities. That is bringing jobs back to the coalfield areas where they belong.

Pathfinder Projects

Peter Pike: What assessment his Department has made of the progress of the housing renewal pathfinder projects.

John Prescott: Under the sustainable communities plan, we are investing £500 million to help reinvigorate the housing markets in the nine areas that are worst affected by low demand. So far, we have allocated funding to six of the projects, including £68 million to the East Lancashire partnership, which covers my hon. Friend's constituency. We shall announce the funding for two more projects shortly. Each scheme has been independently scrutinised and endorsed by the Audit Commission and we are carefully monitoring progress to ensure that the proposals are delivered.

Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend knows the importance of the housing pathfinder renewal projects in Burnley and east Lancashire to my constituency. He will understand that I am a little impatient, probably because of the scale of the problem in Burnley. Will he guarantee today that only the Labour party and a Labour Government are committed to working with councils to ensure the continuity of the programmes so that, ultimately, there is a solution to the problem in Burnley and other similar towns?

John Prescott: I agree with my hon. Friend. As he knows, I have visited Burnley to see the scale of the problem after decades of disinvestment in housing and the community. He also knows that the project that we have proposed will help. I can confirm that our programme of investing so much money in such areas will make a difference. The Opposition's proposal of an £18 billion cut will mean a cut of £400 million in the housing programme. I therefore cannot give my hon. Friend any friendly advice to vote for the Tory party unless he wants to perpetuate the housing difficulties in Burnley.

Matthew Green: The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that one of the areas that has made the best use of the housing renewal pathfinder projects is Liverpool, particularly in relation to its development of neighbourhood projects. Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to praise Liverpool city council for the effective use that it has made of this scheme?

John Prescott: I will certainly praise Liverpool, along with many councils. I do not seek to make a political point. As the hon. Gentleman will know, I produced a report on the eight regions, which showed how all the eight big towns and cities involved had developed and had more jobs, less unemployment, and better health conditions and education. That is because central Government assisted the local authorities to improve the quality of life there. So, whether we are talking about a Liberal or a Labour-controlled local council, good luck to them all if they are carrying out Labour's policies.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Valerie Davey: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 23 June.

Tony Blair: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Valerie Davey: Unemployment has fallen dramatically in Bristol since 1997. Indeed, long-term youth unemployment has dropped by 95 per cent. Given this Government's outstanding achievement in promoting jobs, will the Prime Minister debunk the myth put out by the Leader of the Opposition that the European constitution will be a matter of job loss?

Tony Blair: I certainly will. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we have created about 2 million jobs since 1997, alongside the introduction of the minimum wage and the signing of the social chapter, which some people rather ill-advisedly said would cost jobs, although they have not. At the same time, it is important that we maintain the programme of the new deal, which the Conservatives want to scrap, through which about 1 million people have been helped. It is also important that we retain our membership of the European Union, because 3 million British jobs depend on it.

Michael Howard: One of my constituents has just been told that she must wait 20 months to get radiotherapy treatment for her breast cancer. Why should she not have the right to choose an NHS hospital that could treat her more quickly?

Tony Blair: I am not aware of the specific facts relating to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's constituent, but I agree that it is very important that we make sure that that person, and many others who need help in respect of breast cancer, for example, get the care that they need. That is why this Government have introduced minimum times in order to make sure that people are referred to consultants, and why we have increased massively the amount of investment, including in breast cancer care. I would simply say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we need only compare the record of his Government with ours to see how much better off people are under this Government.

Michael Howard: I do not think that that will be of much comfort to my constituent. The Prime Minister says that things have got better. Is he aware that, in 1998, 28 per cent. of patients had to wait longer than four weeks for radiotherapy, but that, in 2002, 81 per cent. had to wait longer than four weeks? Is that what he means when he says that things have got better?
	Now, can we get back to my question? If my constituent and her general practitioner can find an NHS hospital that can treat her more quickly, why should not she be able to go to that hospital for her treatment? Why is the Prime Minister denying her that choice today?

Tony Blair: It is this Government who, as capacity increases, are giving patients choice for the first time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks, "Where is this improvement in the health service?" Let me tell him where it is. For example, there are 950,000 more elective admissions compared with 1997—that is improvement. There is a 59 per cent. increase in heart operations and a 70 per cent. increase in cataract operations. Every single waiting time and waiting list is down from 1997.
	Let us compare that with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's record in government—when waiting lists rose by 400,000, when training places for nurses and GPs were cut, when 60,000 general and acute beds were lost and when the entire hospital building programme ground to a halt. This Labour Government, through investment and reform, are making the health service better. His only response is not a right to choose, but a right to charge.

Michael Howard: I am afraid that my constituent will have noticed that the Prime Minister has not answered the question I put to him, and it was a very simple question. He is denying her the choice she needs to get her radiotherapy treatment and he will not explain or justify that.
	The Prime Minister has just produced a list; well, I have a list too. Let us be clear: after seven years of Labour, and record spending, we still have 1 million people on waiting lists; average waiting times are up; deaths from superbugs have doubled; there are three new managers for every new doctor, and two for every new nurse; administration costs are up by £2 billion; Britain is now 18thout of 19 in the international health league table; and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which he is very fond of quoting, says that there have been no real improvements in health care under Labour.
	So, the real question is, how do we make things better? The Health Secretary said this morning that the answer is more targets. Does the Prime Minister agree with him?

Tony Blair: I simply do not know the details of the case of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's constituent—he cannot expect me to—but the notion that the treatment of breast cancer has got worse in this country under this Government is utterly absurd: it has got better on every single measure. He says that we should get rid of all performance targets. Let me explain to the House what that means: getting rid of any targets for maximum waiting times and waiting lists, getting rid of the improvements in our accident and emergency departments, and getting rid of the obligation to treat people with breast cancer more quickly—that is what it means.
	Let me tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman what I will not do. I will not introduce, as he apparently wishes to—and perhaps we can now discuss this—a subsidy to those who take out private health care, which would mean that if people wanted to avail themselves of it they would have to pay, under his proposals, some £2,000 for a cataract removal, £5,000 for a hip replacement and almost £10,000 for a heart bypass.
	The difference is very simple: we are, as capacity expands, introducing the right of choice within the health service; the right hon. and learned Gentleman would introduce, having opposed every penny piece of that money for capacity, a right to charge, and patients would end up having to pay 50 per cent. of the cost of their operation—what a typical Tory measure that people will reject.

Michael Howard: They are paying already under this Government—not 50 per cent., but 100 per cent.—and 300,000 of them a year, which is three times as many as were paying when the Prime Minister came into government. That is the truth of the health service under his Government, and he cannot even bring himself to say whether he agrees with what his Health Secretary said this morning.
	Let me tell the Prime Minister what his Health Secretary did say. He said of the NHS that "it needs . . . more targets". Does not that tell us everything we need to know about this Government? Is it not the truth that there are two visions for the future of the national health service: the Labour vision of more targets, more bureaucrats, more centralisation, less freedom for doctors and nurses, and phoney choice for patients, and the Conservative vision of an end to centralisation and targets, real freedom for doctors and nurses, and the real right to choose for patients?
	That is what works in other countries such as France and Sweden, which have better health care than we have here. Why will the Prime Minister not let us have that here?

Tony Blair: May I say how delighted I am that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has decided to make the national health service the battleground for the next election? I welcome that very much. He has one problem, however: his record. For 10 years, he was a member of a Government who put up every single waiting list and under-invested in the national health service. It is true that they had performance targets—they had a performance target that everyone had to be treated within 18 months: the trouble is, they never met it. Let me tell him what the difference is—we have put in the money, which has got the largest hospital building programme under way, which has provided 70,000 extra nurses and thousands of extra doctors and which is making sure that waiting lists and waiting times are falling, that cancer deaths are down by 10 per cent., and that cardiac deaths are down by 20 per cent.
	What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal? It is incoherent in virtually every aspect, but as with the pupil's passport, in the end, whatever gyrations of policy his party goes through, one thing is always consistent—it is a subsidy to the private sector to get people out of a public service. That is the Conservative party's policy. It will mean that people have to pay for half the cost of their operation outside the health service. Up to the next election, we will remind the British people not just of the Conservative party's record, but of the proposal that it now has to take money out of the health service and subsidise private health care—same old Tories, same old policies, same old philosophy, and the same old rejection by the British people.

John Mann: Two years ago, there were 80 burglaries a month in Worksop; last month, there were 18. Two years ago, there were 11 overdose deaths from drug addiction in Bassetlaw; this year, to date, there has been none. Two years ago, no one was being treated by GPs for drug addiction; today, there are 150, and that is going up. Is that not the way forward for drug treatment in Britain?

Tony Blair: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has campaigned long and hard on this issue. He sensibly recognises that the programme that we are now embarked on—we are at the start of it—will allow us eventually, throughout the country, to offer a clear choice, if I may put it like that, to drug abusers who are also criminal offenders: they can either get drug treatment, and we will help to cure their addiction, or they will face increasing penalties, and they will be less likely to get bail and more likely to receive a custodial sentence. That measure of toughness on sentencing, and ensuring that we give them treatment, is the best way to proceed.

Charles Kennedy: Does the Prime Minister recognise the force of the argument being made today by the chairman of the Audit Commission? He makes the central point that
	"providing widespread choice across public services would require impractical levels of extra resources".
	Does the Prime Minister agree with that analysis?

Tony Blair: No, I am afraid that I do not. If I may say so, I am rather happily placed between the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who wants choice to get out of the public service, and the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), who does not want choice within the public service. If there is choice within a system in which there is not increased capacity, the bulge will simply be moved around the system. Therefore, the important thing is to increase capacity and then provide the choice. That is what we are doing, people are welcoming it, and it is one of the reasons why waiting times and waiting lists are falling so rapidly.

Charles Kennedy: I am sure that the chairman of the Audit Commission will note with great interest the Prime Minister's comments on his remarks. Was not the lesson for us all from the recent local elections that for many people the debate about choice misses the point? What people want are quality public services available to them locally, not a false debate about choice.

Tony Blair: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman's experience of the local elections was quite the same as mine. I did not think that the issue at the local elections was choice in the health service. In fact, I seem to remember the Liberal Democrats fighting on a slightly different tack from that in most of their propaganda.
	The right hon. Gentleman rather misdescribes the article by the chairman of the Audit Commission that was in the Financial Times this morning. I read it and I think that it was more balanced than he suggests. Of course what people want is a decent hospital or school right on their doorstep. However, what is important is that, as a means of getting that—let us be honest about it: not everyone is in the position where they have a decent hospital or school on their doorstep—if there is spare capacity elsewhere within the system as we increase capacity, they should have the freedom to go elsewhere within the national health service. That is precisely what we are advocating. [Interruption.] We are not advocating a subsidy to private health care, which is the policy of the Conservative party. Therefore, I think that we have the perfect point and counterpoint. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West wants an unreformed national health service. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe wants to support the private sector at the expense of the health service, and we want a reformed and modernised national health service for the 21st century. I think that that is exactly the position that we should be in.

George Foulkes: Does the Prime Minister accept that a large part of the huge increase in NHS spending rightly goes to pay substantial increases in salaries to GPs and consultants? Will he therefore remind the consultants in particular that we expect value for money and priority for NHS patients?

Tony Blair: That is exactly what the new contract helps with, and, of course, the single tariff within the health care system will allow that to happen to an even greater extent. Interestingly, as a result of the reforms that we are introducing, the private sector cost, when that sector contracts with the national health service, is falling, so we are getting major gains in the interaction between public and private sector—but to the benefit of NHS patients.

Michael Howard: Does the Prime Minister agree with Home Office expert Robert Owen, who told Swansea Crown court that
	"it was accepted"
	by Government
	"that the true figure of immigration was considerably higher than the official figure"
	and that, for example, the number of people from China living in Manchester is six times higher than Government figures suggest?

Tony Blair: There is obviously an issue to do with illegal immigration in particular. We have tightened the immigration rules, and the other day we announced further measures. Of course, there are issues about immigration in this country, as there are in every major developed country around the world, but, for example, in respect of asylum, which was a particular problem in our system, the asylum numbers are now well down on where they were a short time ago, and we are now processing claims in an average of about two months, which used to be 18 months under the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not doubt that there are still issues in relation to immigration. Of course there are, but we are tackling them systematically.

Michael Howard: Mr. Owen also said—on oath—that the number of routes into Britain was "unbelievable" and that some criminals had abandoned drug dealing because people smuggling is more lucrative. In the light of those remarks, how can anyone have confidence in the Government's control of immigration?

Tony Blair: Many people have different views about how serious the issue to do with immigration is. We have accepted the fact that there are abuses in the system. That is why we are tackling them systematically, but I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman accepts, as I do, that it benefits this country to have people coming here to study, for example, or on work permits. It is absolutely correct, however, that we need to expand the numbers within the immigration and nationality department, as we have been doing, in order to tackle illegal immigration, drug smuggling and people smuggling. That is why we are setting up the new serious organised crime agency and why we will make certain proposals on organised crime over the next few months, but it would be wrong to suggest that these problems are new, and that they are simply limited to this Government in this country. We are taking measures to tighten the procedures. Many of those measures to tighten the procedures and, for example, to restrict the right of appeal, which elongates proceedings unnecessarily, have been opposed by the Conservatives in the House of Lords.

Lynne Jones: Will the United Kingdom Government be supporting the United States Government in their attempt to get a renewal of the United Nations Security Council resolution that exempts US troops from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court—and if so, why?

Tony Blair: The Foreign Secretary has just helpfully told me that discussions are taking place at the moment—hon. Members can work that one out for themselves. Whatever the position of the United States on the International Criminal Court, we have always made it clear that we take a different position. We have been one of those who have moved very strongly in favour of having an International Criminal Court, and I happen to think that the concerns of the United States, although I understand them, are misjudged when one looks at the facts. However, we have made that position clear to the United States throughout and it is for the United States to take forward its position and for us to take forward ours. I hope that we can reach an agreement—this is what I would prefer—whereby both we and the United States were satisfied with the workings of the International Criminal Court.

Pete Wishart: Given the deteriorating situation in Sudan, with 1.2 million people now displaced and the prospect that an estimated 360,000 will die in the next two months, will the Prime Minister commit his Government to working fully with the international community to ensure that that horrendous situation is addressed? Will he personally go to the United Nations to ensure that a Security Council resolution is secured and delivered?

Tony Blair: We have, of course, supported Security Council resolution 1547, which urges the Government of Sudan and the various groups in Darfur to observe the ceasefire, allow unimpeded humanitarian access and conclude a political dialogue without delay. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are the second biggest bilateral donor in that situation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development went out to Sudan to look at the situation there and see what more we could do to help. As a Government, we have been in touch with the Untied Nations as well as with the Government of Sudan. The situation is very serious, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing everything that we possibly can to deal with it. The Foreign Secretary had a meeting with the relevant officials this morning to work out how we can take the matter forward.

Malcolm Savidge: Would it not strengthen Britain's moral leadership, in seeking to use our presidency of the G8 and the EU next year to focus the world community on initiatives to tackle global poverty, if we were to set a clear timetable for reaching our UN target of giving 0.7 per cent. of GDP in overseas aid?

Tony Blair: We are committed to meeting the UN target. It is correct that we have not as yet set a specific timetable to do that, and my hon. Friend will know that there are bound to be resource constraints, although I have to say that we are making steady progress towards the target. It is worth pointing out that in 1997, the proportion that we gave in aid was 0.26 per cent. and that by 2005–06 it will be 0.4 per cent. Obviously, we want to see that figure move higher, but that will be the highest level since 1981. We will be committing in bilateral aid about £1 billion a year to Africa. I have already indicated that for our G8 chairmanship next year, the two key priorities should be Africa and climate change. We will therefore focus a great deal of our effort on Africa, through the Commission for Africa in particular.

David Heathcoat-Amory: As the Prime Minister knows, EU institutions are the subject of repeated scandals about waste and fraud, and the auditors have refused to sign off the European accounts for the past nine years. Under the European constitution, however, the same bodies will have more powers in 11 new areas. Why does the Prime Minister want to give more power to institutions that are inadequate even for their existing tasks? Specifically, why did the Government representative on the Convention that drew up the constitution fail to table a single amendment—or to support mine—to clean up and reform the same institutions?

Tony Blair: I agree, and there is no doubt that these institutions need to be reformed. Indeed, one of the jobs of the new Commission President—when he or she is appointed—will be to take that programme of reform forward. That is absolutely clear. I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that, whatever the difficulties, in my book that is no reason for leaving the European Union or for trying to renegotiate our essential terms of membership.
	It was no surprise that the right hon. Gentleman made a point about the EU, but the fact of the matter is that he and several of his colleagues—possibly now a majority of his colleagues on the Conservative Benches—want to use rejection of the treaty to force a renegotiation of Britain's existing membership and relationship with the EU. They will use any argument to do so. In my view, if there are problems of accountancy or fraud within the EU, we stick in it and sort them out; we do not get out of the EU, which would not be good for Britain or for British industry.

Harry Barnes: My right hon. Friend has stressed the democratic advantages in the proposed European Union constitution for our Parliament. Will the proposals bring similar advantages to the European Parliament? Surely we should be advancing towards all power to all the Parliaments.

Tony Blair: In certain areas, there will be a greater right of co-decision through the European Parliament. That is important, but there will also be—[Interruption.]—a good balance between the European Parliament and the national Parliaments, which for the first time will have the ability to have some say in Commission proposals. People have missed the significance of that. The ability of one third of the national Parliaments to send proposals back to the Commission will give a greatly enhanced right—indeed, a right for the first time—for those Parliaments to have a say in European legislation. I think that that will help. Yes, there will be greater co-decision in the European Parliament and there will also be greater ability for the European Parliament to interact with national Parliaments.

David Burnside: Let me try to help the Prime Minister regarding his press conference on Friday this week at Lancaster house, which he will chair after yet another meeting of the political and local parties from Northern Ireland to assess whether progress has been made in the peace process. When he is talking to all the political representatives there, will he attempt to tell the republican leadership that its time has run out and that it is holding up the establishment of Stormont four years after the end of decommissioning as specified in the Belfast agreement? After he has told that leadership that its time has run out, will he turn to the leaders of the democratic parties—the Ulster Unionist party, the Democratic Unionist party, the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Alliance party—and facilitate, by legislation if necessary, the formation of a cross-community Executive? We could then have devolution up and running at Stormont and no longer vetoed by Sinn Fein-IRA.

Tony Blair: I have been making it clear since my speech of November 2002—the so-called acts of completion speech—that there is no way in which we can get these institutions back up and running unless there is a complete and total cessation of all paramilitary activity. That has been made clear throughout. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will be making exactly the same points again. However, it is important to try, if we possibly can, to reach agreement on a basis that includes all political parties. That has to be on a clear, shared democratic understanding. I can assure him that there is no way in which we will try to force people into an Executive to share power with others unless they are prepared to give up their paramilitary activity completely. I do say to him, however, that I hope that if the IRA definitively and clearly ceases paramilitary activity and gives it up so that the campaign of violence in all its aspects becomes a thing of the past, the Democratic Unionist party and the Ulster Unionist party will be prepared to go into government with it. In my view, the challenge is for the IRA to give up violence completely, and then the challenge is for all the parties to come together and make the Executive and institutions work.

Siobhain McDonagh: The South West London elective orthopaedic centre, which serves my constituency, is the largest orthopaedic centre in Europe. It has been open only three months and this year has the capacity to undertake 3,150 hip and knee replacements. May I ask the Prime Minister to ensure that the centre continues to get the funds to help the many people who need it, rather than subsidise private operations for the few?

Tony Blair: I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend that we will certainly continue funding for that centre. Indeed, we will have more such centres up and down the country so that people can have more choice. However, I point out to the Opposition that they opposed our introduction of diagnosis and treatment centres. They go on about choice, but I repeat that the   choice that they offer is to leave the NHS. The   Government are giving people choice inside the NHS.

Simon Burns: Will the Prime Minister accept the clear recommendations of the Electoral Commission and the Select Committee before all-postal ballots are extended? Does he agree that there should be better safeguards against fraud, including individual voter registration?

Tony Blair: I think that the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), said yesterday that we would study those recommendations carefully. Of course we want to make sure that we minimise any possibility of fraud, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that postal voting means that we get a higher turnout.

Anne Picking: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the Scottish National party wants to change its leader as often as the Tories, the people of Scotland will never take on an independent—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the Prime Minister.

David Amess: When the Prime Minister next discusses working-class issues with his Health Secretary, will he consider the widespread concern around the country about the siting of telecommunications masts? Will the Government consider altering the planning laws, so that applicants will have a duty to prove that there is a need for a mast, and that there are no associated health risks?

Tony Blair: What we should do is make sure that we proceed carefully, according to the scientific evidence. Experts in the field prepare reports and reviews for the Government, and we must take account of them, but it would be foolish for us to make a decision that was not based on the scientific evidence. Therefore, I will proceed very carefully—as the Government are doing—but the decision that we reach will be in the interests of all the community, and it will be based on proper scientific knowledge and expertise.

BILL PRESENTED

Food Justice Strategies

Alan Simpson, supported by Mr. David Amess, Mr. Don Foster, Mr. Simon Thomas, Dr. Ian Gibson, Mr. David Drew and Dr. Howard Stoate, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to draw up and implement strategies to promote food justice and to eradicate food poverty; to specify certain matters that shall be considered in the strategies; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 October, and to be printed. [Bill 125].

Cinemas (Rural Areas)

David Rendel: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about cinemas in rural areas
	I am delighted to have this opportunity to present a Bill that will increase the opportunities for filmgoing in rural areas. There are two important trends at present in UK cinema exhibition. First, the good news: cinema audiences and the number of cinema screens are both growing. However, the bad news is that there is a growing concentration of that capacity, to the exclusion of many of our communities.
	The latest figure show that, in 2003, 44.3 per cent. of all screens are in city-centre locations, and that 52.2 per cent. are in suburban, edge, or out-of-town locations. Only 3.5 per cent. of screens are in rural areas. In London, there are 6.5 screens for every 100,000 people. That compares with 3.5 per 100,000 in the north-east, and 3.8 in the south-west.
	Across the country, many small local cinemas are closing. In 1988, multiplex venues accounted for only 10 per cent. of the UK's cinema screens. That figure rose to 37 per cent. by 1995, to 57 per cent. by 1999, and to 71 per cent. by 2003.
	More than three quarters of multiplex screens are owned by just five companies, and more than 50 per cent. are owned by just three companies. That raises serious questions about whether there is a level playing field for competition in the industry. Richard Cobden might have had something to say about that.
	My point is not that multiplex cinemas are a bad thing—we would dearly love to have one in Newbury—but that the closure of the smaller cinemas that tend to serve the rural communities has resulted in a serious problem of access in many small towns and rural areas. As John Woodward, the chief executive of the UK Film Council stated it in a letter to a local campaigner on this issue:
	"Over the last ten years, despite huge growth in the number of cinemas and screens in the UK, audience choice has not increased, with fewer titles in wide distribution and a film diet comprising mainly Hollywood blockbusters."
	Why should we worry about the closure of what is often described as the local fleapit? First, cinemas are an important part of local history. Local historian Frances Berry has described cinemagoing in Newbury in the era of silent films:
	"We sat on wooden chairs which were constantly on the move as the occupants got more and more excited at the drama unfolding before them, during which they would cheer the heroes and boo the baddies, all the while tucking into a variety of edible items, more often than not fruit from the local stalls."
	Above all, cinema was a communal experience—people used to bring their fish and chip suppers with them—and they were part of the life and vibrancy of the town.  The trend today is in a very different direction. Cinema is less likely to be a local or a communal experience. The dominance of the multiplex has resulted in what is often a more sterile, individualised filmgoing experience.
	Secondly, local cinemas make an important contribution to the economic and social vitality of local communities and to social inclusion. Their closure means that people have to travel in order to reach a cinema, often for a considerable distance and almost always by car. At the same time, many people are simply excluded from access to the cinema: if one is elderly or a child, or if one has poor access to transport or is unable to afford ticket prices, the nearest multiplex venue may not be an option. The closure of small-town cinemas runs counter both to the Government's efforts to safeguard the environment from the unnecessary use of cars and to minimise social exclusion.
	Thirdly, local cinemas are important because a free and diverse society benefits from the widest possible public access to the arts in all their diversity. Cinema speaks in a universal language. It deals with universal themes of love, sadness, joy and loss. But films are also grounded in a specific cultural context. Because they communicate the particular in a language that is universal, they are powerful mediums of cultural understanding. In a society with large communities from the Indian sub-continent, for example, we all benefit from having access to Indian films. As we struggle with our identity as European citizens, we benefit from having access to continental European cinema. And, of course, British films—an important source of cultural understanding for our ethnic minorities—often struggle to get a screening. The closure of local cinemas is therefore worrying because it restricts choice and the variety of films on offer.
	Fourthly, we all complain about vandalism and yobbish behaviour in this country. The Government's only answer is ever more restrictions, particularly on young people. Why not take a more positive line? Why not offer young people who want to spend time with their friends and away from their homes an opportunity to enjoy a good film? Not only social inclusion but social cohesion can be enhanced by a good local cinema.
	What can be done? First, it is important to acknowledge the valuable work already being done by the UK Film Council. The digital fund for non-theatrical exhibition, involving £500,000 of lottery money, offers opportunities to film clubs, local film societies, community groups and mobile film exhibitors to buy DVD-based digital projection equipment. Awards under the scheme cover 50 to 80 per cent. of the costs of the equipment, or up to £5,000. The Film Council is also working on a grant award scheme for film societies, aimed at improving the film programming services available locally. Meanwhile, the Film Council's distribution and exhibition fund is distributing £13 million of lottery money to create a digital screen network, with the aim of expanding access to specialised films, particularly in areas of social exclusion.
	Those are important initiatives, and the Film Council deserves our congratulation and support for its work. However, it is operating under significant financial constraints: only 2 per cent. of the lottery budget for good causes is allocated to its work; moreover, there is no dedicated public funding stream to facilitate capital investment in new cinema capacity in areas where there currently is none. I understand that the UK Film Council will be in a position later this year to announce some money for capital work, but we are talking about a relatively small amount to cover small-scale investment in fixtures and fittings, rather than a major investment programme of the kind needed. I hope that the Government will take seriously the case for increased public support from lottery or non-lottery sources for cinema exhibition.
	So much for why my Bill is needed: let me now explain the four proposals contained within it. The first two relate to planning law. First, my Bill will remove cinemas from the use class category D2 (Leisure). At present, a change of use involving a cinema building need not require planning permission if it involves movement within the same use class. For example, a building may move from being a cinema to being a bingo hall. By removing cinemas from the leisure use class, my Bill would extend to them the same protection that applies to theatres and give local authorities an important tool with which to prevent the closure of existing cinemas.
	A second change to planning law would help to facilitate the opening of new cinemas. My Bill would require the Secretary of State to bring before Parliament regulations to ensure that cinemas are included among acceptable objects for planning gain. The third proposal is an expansion of the market towns initiative to include support for cinema capacity in small rural towns. The fourth is to allow local authorities to provide business rate relief on a discretionary basis to local cinemas. That would require an amendment to the Local Government Finance Act 1988, in much the same way as the Local Government Act 2003 already enables rate relief for community amateur sports clubs. Together with my proposed change to planning rules, that would give extra discretion to local councils to safeguard vulnerable cinema facilities and, perhaps, introduce new ones.
	Cinema has been described as an everyday magic. It is part of social and cultural history. But, as I have tried to show, cinemas are important for the economic and social vitality of small towns and village communities. This is not just about protecting the local fleapit for nostalgic or sentimental reasons. It is a contribution to a much wider policy agenda, relating to the reduction of crime and vandalism and to the economic, social and environmental sustainability of local communities. For those reasons, local cinemas deserve political support. I hope, therefore, that the House will support my Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Rendel, Mr. Don Foster, Sue Doughty, Andrew George, Sandra Gidley, Mr. Phil Willis, Nick Harvey, John Mann, Jane Griffiths, Mr. Derek Wyatt, Hugh Bayley and Mr. David Curry.

Cinemas (Rural Areas)

Mr. David Rendel accordingly presented a Bill to make provision about cinemas in rural area: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 October, and to be printed [Bill 126].

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [Lords] [Ways and Means]

Paul Goggins: I beg to move,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any amounts recovered in respect of payments made under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.
	As part of the Government's strategy for making criminals pay for their crimes, we have tabled an amendment to the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill that will ensure that more offenders contribute towards repairing and rebuilding the lives of the victims they have harmed. The aim of the amendment is to give the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority a power to recover from offenders the money it has paid in compensation to their victims under the criminal injuries compensation scheme. In practice, where the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority has paid compensation to a victim of violent crime, the authority will be able to pursue the offender for some or all of that compensation through the civil courts.
	The amendment will insert a new clause into the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995, which is the Act that paved the way for the introduction of the present tariff-based compensation scheme. The amendment will give the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority the powers it needs to pursue offenders. It will also provide that the money recovered from offenders should be paid into the Consolidated Fund. That is a standard provision and is consistent with the current arrangements for victims. Under the scheme, sums recovered from victims who have secured compensation from other sources in addition to the compensation scheme—for example, from the offender himself—are also paid into the Consolidated Fund. Payments going into the Consolidated Fund are deemed to create a charge upon "the people", and this in turn necessitates a ways and means resolution, which is why I seek the approval of the House today.
	This is not the occasion to discuss the merits of the amendment, as they will be considered as part of the deliberations of the Committee, which, I can report to the House got off to a positive start yesterday. However, I can confirm that the amendment limits recovery of compensation to those who have been convicted of an offence in the criminal court and makes it clear that the amounts recovered must be confined to the compensation paid for the injuries or harm that results from the offence or offences for which the offender was convicted.
	The proposal to give the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority a right to recover money from offenders was one of a number of proposals set out in the consultation paper, "Compensation and Support for Victims of Crime", issued on 12 January 2004. More than 30 respondents to the consultation commented on that proposal and the overwhelming majority were strongly in favour. In the light of that widespread support, we decided that we should give effect to the proposal as soon as possible. We shall be inviting the Committee to approve the amendment, which is why we are seeking the approval of the House for the Ways and Means motion.
	I am sure that the House will agree that it is right, wherever possible, that offenders should be made to pay for the consequences of their crimes. If so, it follows that it must also be right for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to be armed with the necessary powers to pursue offenders for the compensation that it has already paid out to their victims from public funds. I therefore commend the motion to the House.

Cheryl Gillan: First, Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to apologise for my inelegant exit from the Chamber earlier, in a vain attempt to switch off a pager that I thought was on silent? My apologies to the House for the disruption I caused.
	As I made clear during the Second Reading of the   Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, the Opposition broadly support the intentions of the measure and intend to work constructively to ensure that a well-drafted Bill enters the statute book. The costs associated with the Bill are not enormous, but they are nevertheless significant. I shall ensure that my remarks are relatively brief.
	It is worth considering the overall costs. The explanatory notes estimate a total annual cost of £40 million and an insignificant increase in public service manpower. It is envisaged that there will be a relatively small increase in the work of the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts and, in the case of the measures for victims, the parliamentary ombudsman's office. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that the police, the CPS and the courts are already extremely busy and that even a relatively small increase in work, or in the number of cases coming before the courts, could be hard to accommodate within existing structures.
	Nevertheless, we have to consider the costs of the Bill in increased public expenditure and manpower against the estimated costs of domestic violence. According to the regulatory impact assessment that accompanied the Bill, the immediate and long-term human costs of domestic violence are profound; we all agree that the financial costs to the public purse and to society in general are immense. It would thus be of long-term benefit to the public purse to tackle domestic violence; it is estimated that even reducing it by 1 per cent. would save us £52.5 million a year, which is not to be sneezed at. The RIA illustrates that by the Hackney example; the full costs for the London borough of Hackney are estimated to be close to £7.5 million, which is equivalent to £37.50 per resident. The annual cost to the whole public purse could thus be about £2.25 billion. That shows in no uncertain terms the economic case as to why it is right to tackle domestic violence.
	We should not be a responsible Opposition, however, if we did not scrutinise Government expenditure or proposals and it certainly was not clear from the explanatory notes that accompanied the Second Reading what the financial and manpower impact of the new provisions on compensating victims of crime will be, because those provisions were drafted so late in the day. In fact, I am pleased to hear that the Minister has tabled those amendments. I have yet to see the latest set—[Interruption.] Oh, fine. The Minister is telling me that they are not yet tabled.

Paul Goggins: I was doing my best to indicate to the hon. Lady that the amendment that relates to the ways and means resolution was tabled towards the end of last week. The other amendments that relate to other measures to do with victims have not yet been tabled. I promised yesterday that they would be tabled in the next couple of days. She needs to give me a little more time, but I promise that they will be tabled, as I promised yesterday.

Cheryl Gillan: I am glad that the Minister is making that clear, but I am being uncharacteristically generous to the Government. Even though the ways and means resolution relates to a single, narrow amendment, it would be helpful to set it in the light of the other amendments and proposals. Bearing it in mind that the Government have not tabled any of those amendments for us to look at and that we are already well into the scrutiny of the Bill in Committee, I hope that the Minister will ensure that they are certainly on the amendment paper by the end of today.
	On the day that the House gave the Bill a Second Reading, the Home Secretary issued a press release that read:
	"A Victims Fund will put more money into services such as practical support, information and advice to victims of rape and sexual offences, road traffic accident victims and those who have been bereaved as a result of crime. We want to provide more funding to the voluntary sector and communities to meet local needs. I have already dedicated £4 million from the proceeds of crime to this fund. The measures we are announcing today will further help to ensure that offenders contribute more to supporting victims."
	Clearly, the Opposition welcome increased support for the victims of crime, but concern was expressed on both sides of the House, as well as in the country, at proposals to fund the compensation scheme out of surcharges on motoring fines. People felt that that proposal was unjust, and I am glad that the Government have reached similar conclusions. If anybody is to fund the scheme, it should be those with criminal convictions and those responsible for antisocial behaviour. We will obviously discuss the measures in detail during the consideration of the Bill, but I should like to put on record the fact that we welcome the Minister's shift in approach on this matter.
	The Minister will know that unpaid fines have been a serious problem—I have raised the issue before. There has been a recent increase in the level of fines paid, but can the Minister assure the House that that increase will be sustained and does not simply represent a blip, following certain Government action? The Minister will accept that the credibility of these measures will depend on fines being paid on time, and I still remain dubious about the collection mechanisms and the level of collection. I should be grateful to the Government for any estimate of the increased work load that the proposals will cause to the people who administer court fines. We support the idea of increasing support for the victims of crime, not of increasing fines and surcharges to pay for more bureaucracy.
	Will the Minister clarify whether the increased expenditure will be met by central Government, or will local authorities, for example, be expected to meet the costs? The police will be expected to find £6.5 million to comply with the code of practice, mainly to pay for the extra staff who will have to deal with complaints. Will that cost be met by an increase in central Government grant or from existing police expenditure? Overall, we have welcomed the Government's measures, and the sums involved appear to be fairly modest. Nevertheless, I would not want to give the Government a blank cheque, and I hope that the Minister can answer those brief points.

David Heath: As has been pointed out already, this is not the time to discuss the detail of the Government's proposals. However, as the Minister knows, we have broadly welcomed not only the initial idea, but the modification that the Home Secretary announced in his statement on Second Reading, when he indicated that he would seek payments from the mugger, rather than from the motorist. That is an important point, but there are still an awful lot of unanswered questions. Until we see the detail of the Government's proposals, it is difficult to give a reasoned view of their likely effectiveness. We certainly do not intend to divide the House on the ways and means resolution, but our difficulty is simply that it will allow sums to be recovered from criminals and taken into the maw of the Treasury, but victims will not get a better deal from the criminal compensation arrangements.

Dominic Grieve: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the suggestion was that the money would be recovered from the specific offenders who had committed offences against individuals? In fact, we are talking about the recovery of sums from offenders as a class generally.

David Heath: That is precisely what the Government intend. The proposal is effectively a tax on fines, or a tax on criminals, although I am not sure whether one would argue that it is particularly progressive or regressive. The Government intend to tax criminals to provide money, one hopes, for a worthwhile objective, but the important difficulty is that we also hear that the criminal compensation fund is capped—the funds available to the victim will not increase. I am not clear how victims will be any better off.
	Is this simply not another way to raise revenue—albeit from a source that is likely to find favour with the great mass of the population, because making criminals pay for their crimes sounds good—without doing anything to help the victims? That is what we wish to test in Committee and during the Bill's later stages. I will expect the Minister to tell us that, although the moneys recovered will go into the Consolidated Fund, an additional sum will be immediately taken out and made available for victims' compensation, so that victims, not the Treasury, will be better off as a result of the proposals.
	This is a very crude form of restorative justice. I strongly commend such justice, as does the Liberal Democrat party. I believe that huge advances can be achieved in making criminals come face to face with their victims and provide some recompense for the mischief that they have committed. That must be the right way forward, but it sounds very much as though no explicit connection will be made. Criminals will simply be charged an additional sum, which they will consider to be part of their fines or part of the cost of imprisonment, and the money will go to the Treasury: the individual victims of those criminals will not receive a penny piece more as a result. If so, the scheme will fail our test of effectiveness. I hope that it will not fail.
	I hope that the Minister can reassure us that a direct connection between cause and effect will be explicit throughout the proposals, but we cannot be convinced of that until we see the detail. I do not intend to oppose the ways and means resolution, but I look forward to a great deal more information on the workings of the scheme becoming available as we make progress with the Bill.

Paul Goggins: With the leave of the House, I wish to respond briefly to the points made. I am tempted to go slightly wider than the motion, but I entirely endorse the spirit of the initial comments made by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). An analysis of the costs and benefits in relation to domestic violence and other issues associated with the victims of crime shows that we can gain much from the added protection that the Bill will provide. I very much welcome her remarks in that regard. She is right to say that the overall cost of the Bill is estimated at a little more than £40 million, but we are not discussing that funding today. We are discussing something very narrow indeed.
	I can confirm to the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that a regulatory impact assessment of this specific measure and the Government's response to the consultation will be available very shortly. Again, I trust that I shall not try the hon. Lady's patience too much if I say that that will happen in the next couple of days.

Cheryl Gillan: The Minister is trying my patience a little, so I shall take one of my gloves off and ask him to guarantee that we will have it before the House rises tomorrow.

Paul Goggins: If the hon. Lady is asking about the Government's response to the consultation, I confirm that it will be available before the end of business tomorrow. I cannot say when the regulatory impact assessment in relation to this specific measure will be laid, but it will be as soon as possible. As for the further amendments, I repeat what I said earlier and yesterday: they will be tabled as soon as possible. Yesterday I promised that that would happen in the next day or two, which leaves little time, but that promise will be fulfilled. If nothing else, this debate has caused me to make a clear commitment in that respect. We shall, I hope, be able to discuss the further amendments in Committee in the consensual manner that we have shown thus far. I welcome the hon. Lady's comments on the press statement made to coincide with Second reading.
	The power is a narrow one to allow the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to reclaim from offenders that which has been paid out as compensation to victims. The money paid out by the CICA is paid from the Consolidated Fund; the measure simply puts money into the Consolidated Fund. Neither the Chancellor nor anyone else is being given an opportunity to make off with the cash and use it for other purposes. Money paid out to victims is merely being recovered from offenders. If the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome wants to call that a tax on offenders, he may do so.

Dominic Grieve: It is important for the record that we understand what is involved. We are talking not about the CICA paying £6,000 to the victim of a violent assault, then reclaiming £6,000 from the perpetrator of the assault, but about the CICA, having paid out £6,000 to a victim, looking to the levy and surcharge that will be applied to offenders under the Government's proposal to create a fund from which such compensation can be paid. As the Minister is aware, until the Government backed down on the suggestion that speeding motorists be liable for the levy, that was a fairly contentious issue.

Paul Goggins: The debate is becoming slightly confused. The measure that we are discussing now does not relate to the victims fund; it deals with where the money that has been recovered from offenders goes when compensation has been paid out to a victim. All the measure does is allow money to be paid into the Consolidated Fund—the same fund that makes payments to victims. The victims fund is separate and will be discussed separately in Committee—a debate to which I look forward, as does the hon. Gentleman, I am sure.

Dominic Grieve: The Minister has clarified the matter in a slightly unexpected fashion. At present, perpetrators of offences can be ordered to pay compensation to their victims, so why is the ways and means resolution needed—unless the system is being substantially altered by means of the Bill?

Paul Goggins: It is being substantially altered in one respect: the CICA will now be able, through the courts, to recover money from offenders. That is the new power that we seek, and the ways and means resolution is needed if the Committee is to be able to consider the relevant amendment. Whether one calls the measure a tax on offenders or not, it is wholly right and I invite the House to support the motion.
	Question put and agreed to.

Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund

Phil Woolas: I beg to move,
	That Mr Barry Gardiner be discharged as a Managing Trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund and Mr Tony Colman be appointed as a Managing Trustee in pursuance of section 1 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following motion:
	That Mr Barry Gardiner be discharged as a Managing Trustee of the House of Commons Members' Fund and Mr Tony Colman be appointed as a Managing Trustee in pursuance of section 2 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939.

Phil Woolas: The motions are tightly drawn and neither is a Government motion. Although I do not wish to detain the House, let me briefly set out some of the background to the trustees and the funds.
	The parliamentary contributory pension fund is managed by a board of nine trustees—eight serving Members of Parliament and one pensioner trustee, currently the right hon. Lord Stewartby—all of whom are volunteers. By convention, the chairman is an Opposition Member, and I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) is present. I put on the record the House's thanks to him and his colleagues for their work, to which they bring considerable expertise.
	I hope that the House will join me in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) for his service on the board of managing trustees, and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) for kindly agreeing to serve. Like his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney brings direct professional experience to the board of trustees, and I am sure that it will prove invaluable. He is a successful private sector business man turned local authority leader turned Member of Parliament. His biography lists his other achievements to date, including his membership of the Treasury Committee. In addition, he is a former member of the Price Commission and, until May 1998, he was chair of the UK steering committee on local government superannuation and the local authorities mutual investment trust.
	Let me take this opportunity to congratulate some of the trustees on recent examination successes. I am delighted to report to the House that the chairman of the trustees of the fund, in addition to being a qualified chartered surveyor and property expert, has recently gained the Pensions Management Institute's certificate of essential trustee knowledge, as have his fellow trustees my hon. Friends the Members for Brent, North and for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) and the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). Congratulations and thanks are due.
	Routine administration of the fund falls to its secretary, the director of operations of the Department of Finance and Administration, Mr. Archie Cameron, CBE. Mr. Cameron, who has also recently gained the PMI certificate, is to retire from the service of the House at the end of September, after 16 years' service. He will be much missed.
	Let me now explain the background to the second motion. The Members' fund is managed by a board of six trustees, all of whom are serving Members. Some, but not all, are also trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund. Again, by convention the chairman is an Opposition Member, in this case the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden. The fund's trustees are, of course, accountable to the House. We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North for his service on the fund and to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney for agreeing to serve. Again, administration is carried out by Mr. Cameron and his colleagues. I put on the record the thanks of the House to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden and his colleagues as managing trustees of the fund. The fund is inspected by the internal review service of the House and by the National Audit Office, both of which scrutinise the accounts and the general running of the fund. The Government Actuary's Department provides relevant professional assistance. In conclusion, the House of Commons Members' fund provides a valuable service and is well managed by the managing trustees. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney will bring useful experience to the board, so I commend the motions to the House.

Oliver Heald: May I associate myself with the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the House? We are fortunate that right hon. and hon. Members are prepared to take on those duties. The hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) has acquitted himself well in his role, and we look forward to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) taking up his position. He has main board experience, and has taken an interest in pensions for many years, so we have confidence in his abilities.
	I congratulate my noble Friend Lord Stewartby on his work for the fund. He is my constituency predecessor, representing Hertfordshire North as it then was, and is a former Treasury Minister who is very knowledgeable in this area. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) has gained great knowledge of pensions over the years, and has attained the new qualification, on which I congratulate him. I pay tribute to the work of all the other trustees, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). He is my neighbour and a distinguished former Secretary of State for Social Security with a demonstrable knowledge of pensions. I, too, pay tribute to the work of Archie Cameron, who has retired after performing sterling service for all of us. We do not wish to divide the House, and I support the tributes to the trustees.

John Butterfill: May I say how much the other trustees and I value the contribution over several years of the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), who has been an assiduous and dedicated member of the board of trustees? We are sorry to lose him, but we wish him well in his future career. I welcome to the board the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), who has considerable expertise in the field and has demonstrated significant business acumen, so we look forward to his contributions to our discussions. Finally, I pay tribute to Archie Cameron, to whom I owe a personal debt of gratitude. He has been a rock for the trustees in supporting our activities and, while we shall sorely miss him, we wish him a very happy retirement.

John Burnett: I wish to say a few words as chairman of the pension fund and a member of the Members' fund. The hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) has performed valuable work for both funds, as he is extremely conscientious and pays great attention to detail. The whole House should be grateful to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), whose chairmanship of the pension fund is superb, and the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who is an outstanding chairman of the charitable fund. We work together very well, and we look forward to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) joining us. He has a distinguished record in the private sector, and we look forward to having the benefit of his knowledge and expertise.
	Finally, as a member of both funds, I believe that we owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Archie Cameron, and it is a matter of great regret that he is leaving us. He has guided us through difficult times, and has advised us extremely soundly. The whole House should be immensely grateful to him for all his fantastic work.
	Question put and agreed to.

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND

Ordered,
	That Mr Barry Gardiner be discharged as a Managing Trustee of the House of Commons Members' Fund and Mr Tony Colman be appointed as a Managing Trustee in pursuance of section 2 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939.—[Mr.   Woolas.]

HIGHER EDUCATION BILL (PROGRAMME)   (No. 5)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003],
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Higher Education Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 27th January 2004 and 31st March 2004:
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1.   Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	2.   Those proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table, and each part of those proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the second column.
	
		TABLE
		
			  
			 Lords amendments Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 Amendments Nos 5, 15 to 20, 22 to 24 One hour after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments. 
			 Amendments Nos 3, 4, 2, 6 to 8, 13, 9 to 12, 14, 1, 21, 25 to 27 Three hours after the commencement of those proceedings. 
		
	
	Subsequent stages
	3.   Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any further question being put.
	4.   The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a  conclusion one hour after their commencement— [Gillian Merron.]
	The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 140.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Higher Education Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that privileges are involved in Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 20. If the House agrees to those amendments, I will arrange for the necessary entries to be made in the Journal.
	There is an error in Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 23. It should read:
	"Line 5, after '31(a)' insert '32'."
	The House has now been informed.

Clause 29
	 — 
	Director of Fair Access to Higher Education

Lords amendment No. 5.

Alan Johnson: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 15 and Government motion to disagree, Lords amendment No. 16 and Government motion to disagree, Lords amendment No. 17 and Government motion to disagree, Lords amendment No. 18, Lords amendment No. 19 and Government motion to disagree, Lords amendment No. 20 and Government amendments (a) and (b) thereto, Lords amendment No. 22, Lords amendment No. 23 and Government amendment (a) thereto, and Lords amendment No. 24.

Alan Johnson: The group of amendments is a mixed bag. It contains a number of important amendments clarifying how the director of fair access will operate and providing for greater parliamentary scrutiny of regulations relating to their role. It also contains Lords amendments that would do great damage to the cause of fair access.
	Lords amendment No. 5 is the first damaging amendment. It would make the Secretary of State subject to the Civil Service Commission's code of practice when appointing the director of fair access. That code of practice is splendid—for civil servants—but we are appointing the head of a public body, and it is therefore the wrong code.
	The understandable concern was raised in the other place that the appointment should be fair and should be made on the basis of merit. We agree with that concern and gave firm assurances in the other place, which I am happy to repeat, that the director of fair access will be appointed in accordance with the Nolan principles, which are enshrined in the code of practice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The director will be a public appointment made by the Secretary of State, and the code of practice for public appointments is mandatory in those circumstances.
	The Lords amendment does not make sense. The Office of the Civil Service Commissioners says that its code is not the right code for that appointment. In its report, "The Regulatory State: Ensuring its Accountability", which was published in May, the Lords Constitution Committee stated:
	"Ministers should remain responsible for appointing regulators, subject to Nolan rules, to ensure proper responsibility and accountability."
	I am sorry that the other place saw fit to ignore its own advice, and I hope that this House can rectify the situation.
	Lords amendment No. 15 would create a host of problems. One problem is that it deletes the power of the director of fair access to issue guidance to institutions, and I cannot see the benefit of denying institutions such help and assistance. The amendment gets worse in that it also delegates the regulation-making power on the approval of plans. In the draft regulations, hon. Members will have seen how we intend to use those powers to ensure dialogue between the director and the institution before any decision is made, and we want to reinstate that regulation-making power. The power is important, and it will also enable us to introduce the review procedure, which we agreed in principle in the other place and about which I shall say more.
	Those aspects of Lords amendment No. 15 are bad enough, but it is particularly strange in that it implies a duty on institutions to provide a strategic plan to the funding councils. I presume, although it is not defined, that that means the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and the Teacher Training Agency. That implied duty would lie on the face of the Bill in perpetuity.
	Lords amendment No. 15 also places a duty on the director to require institutions to supply details of the financial assistance offered to students. That is in addition to the strategic plan, which would mean duplicate reporting. In drawing up our policy for access plans, we have tried hard to make sure that access plans do not create unnecessary burdens for institutions, which is why we have consistently said that access plans will subsume the widening participation strategies that institutions currently provide to HEFC, and we have discussed those strategies with both the sector and HEFC itself. Lords amendment No. 15 is confused and confusing. It would increase bureaucracy, and this House should reject it.
	Lords amendment No. 16 is also faintly peculiar, in that it gives a regulation-making power to the funding councils on the duration of plans, presumably to make the access plans coterminous with the strategic plans, which would be bound to lead to the focus of access plans being lost in the swathe of documentation that the funding councils would require. Although it is not unknown, it is hardly conventional for organisations such as funding councils to make regulations, and it does not make sense for them to have the power to decide the length of plans. Our draft regulations provide for a length of up to five years, which seemed acceptable when we scrutinised the Bill in this House, and I therefore believe that Lords amendment No. 16 should be rejected.
	Lords amendments Nos. 17 and 19 cover England and Wales respectively, and they strike at the very heart of our proposals for protecting access. In England, we have made it clear that in return for the freedom to charge higher variable fees, institutions must plough back some of that extra income into outreach and financial support for students. That will make a difference, because universities will make more contacts with under-represented groups, and more bursaries will be available for poor students.
	The Lords amendments remove the power of the relevant authority—in England, the director of fair access—to sanction an institution if it reneges on that commitment. I am sure that most institutions will stick to their plans, but it is essential that the relevant authority has the power to sanction them if they do not do so. I hope that the House will reject those damaging Lords amendments, particularly in view of the safeguards inserted in the other place, which we are prepared to accept and which I shall now outline.

Graham Allen: I hope that my right hon. Friend will give those amendments short shrift. Many Labour Members feel that the office for fair access has already had its teeth pulled, not least by some of the amendments in the other place. We are now down to the gums, and to remove further authority from the office for fair access would render it useless, so I ask my right hon. Friend to hold firm in his resistance to the Lords amendments.

Alan Johnson: Ironically, we may discuss dentistry under a later amendment. I remember the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) made in an important contribution in Committee, and I ask the House to stand as firm as the Government for the reasons that he set out eloquently in Committee.
	I have reached the amendments that the Government believe will make a contribution and provide the necessary safeguards for those who are concerned about the introduction of the regulator. Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 23 and Lords amendments Nos. 22 and 23 make a number of the Secretary of State's key regulation-making powers subject to the affirmative procedure.
	In the House of Lords, we tabled amendments in Committee to make regulations on the contents of plans and on the financial penalties that might be imposed by the director if plans are breached subject to affirmative resolution. That was in response to the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report, which recommended the affirmative procedure for those particular regulation-making powers. The affirmative procedure would apply to regulations made by the Secretary of State in respect of England only, because the legislation-making procedures in Wales are different.
	The Government have introduced an amendment to ensure that the regulation-making power in respect of clause 32 for the approval of plans is also subject to affirmative resolution, which recognises the importance of regulations made under that clause.
	We are also prepared to accept Lords amendments on the duty of the office for fair access to make decisions, especially to apply sanctions in a reasonable manner. Lords amendment No. 18 deals with that. It is a general point of law that the director of fair access is obliged to act reasonably. That includes refraining from sanctioning an institution that had done everything that it reasonably could to comply with its plan. If he failed to do that, he would be subject to judicial review, whether the amendment was accepted or not. We have always supported the principle that institutions that take all reasonable steps to comply with their access plans should not be penalised when factors beyond their control prevent them from doing what they said that they would do.
	The Secretary of State's draft letter of guidance, which we published, makes it clear that
	"an institution's failure to meet milestones should not in itself be grounds for any kind of sanction."
	Lords amendment No. 18 enshrines the principle of reasonableness, which, as I have said, reflects a general point of law in primary legislation. I assure hon. Members that the amendment would not transform light touch into soft touch. If an institution has no good reason for not complying with its plan's provisions, two sanctions are available to a director: to direct the Higher Education Funding Council to reduce the institution's grant or to refuse to renew that institution's access plan.
	The other place tried to get rid of the director's sanctioning power but we seek the House's assistance to overturn the relevant amendment. We have constantly argued that the Bill constitutes a finely balanced package, of which sanctions are an important part. The amendment does not weaken the sanctions but enshrines a general principle of law—that the director must use his or her powers in a measured and reasonable fashion—in the Bill. I therefore commend Lords amendment No. 18 to hon. Members.

Graham Allen: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, as well as the stick that he describes there is also the carrot of best practice? For example, universities such as Nottingham and Nottingham Trent already undertake a great many things that we all urge universities to do. Does he agree that, if we can spread best practice, the regulator will probably never feel the need to intervene with the stick because everyone will aspire and compete to achieve that best practice?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend makes his intervention at exactly the right time because I was about to move on to spreading best practice. Not only do I agree with my hon. Friend, but the other place tabled amendments to help achieve what he described.

Peter Bradley: I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees that, although best endeavours are an important part of the process, outcomes are the most vital aspect of broadening access to our universities. If the access plan is set for four years and it is clear after one or two years that the required outcome is not being achieved, what powers will the regulator have to try to intervene, perhaps on a mutual basis, to redirect the plan to secure the intended outcome?

Alan Johnson: The plans last for five years—I misled my hon. Friend earlier. The regulator's sanction is not to renew an access plan. It is almost inconceivable that, after five years and a university's best endeavours through its access plan, there would be no change in the milestones that the university sets. However, in those circumstances, the regulator would ask questions to discover why that had happened. He or she would not agree the next access plan and the university would be unable to charge more than the standard £1,000-odd fee. That is an important sanction that applies not only to the current round of agreements on access plans but all future renewals.

James Clappison: A few months have passed since we debated the measure in Committee. The Minister made the important point in response to the question of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) that universities that do not achieve the milestones that are set for them will be in trouble with the regulator and could face substantial loss of fee income by not having their agreements renewed. Will the Minister remind us of the milestones? What are the hoops through which the universities have to jump?

Alan Johnson: They are not hoops but milestones that the universities set. As I explained in Committee, universities are pleased to be involved with that. The Russell group is often criticised as if its members were not interested in widening access. They set their milestones to help them achieve their ambition to improve the social class mix. The Secretary of State's letter to the regulator said that failure to achieve the milestones would not in itself lead to sanctions. The plans can be renegotiated at any time by agreement during the five years. However, if a problem remains at the end of five years and the regulator believes that the relevant university is not doing enough to tackle it, the sanction of not agreeing to the new access plan is available.

Alan Howarth: Although I agree that it is essential that universities have access plans that should be monitored and that the role of OFFA, as the Government set it out, is reasonable and appropriate, does my right hon. Friend accept that the factors that determine how rapidly we proceed towards narrowing the social class gap in participation in higher education are largely outside universities' control and depend above all on what happens in schools?

Alan Johnson: My right hon. Friend makes a relevant point. We have repeated exhaustively since publishing our consultation document on widening participation that we are considering aspiration, attainment and application. The provision that we are discussing is intended to encourage youngsters from poorer backgrounds, who get the required level of attainment and have the right aspirations, to apply to the university that best fits their attainment and aspirations. That is the focus of clause 35 but it is by no means the panacea for resolving the problems of widening access to higher education.

Peter Bradley: The access plans will be more onerous for the universities that are further behind in fulfilling the Government's agenda for widening access, but five years is a long time. Given that the take-up of places in Oxbridge by working-class or lower-income students is no more than 10 per cent. and that we are not setting quotas—that might be a dangerous practice—what estimate would my right hon. Friend give of that percentage at Oxford and Cambridge after five years? What is an acceptable, indicative figure in his view?

Alan Johnson: I shall resist the temptation to suggest an indicative figure. The point of appointing access regulators is for them to make such decisions. I would not want to make them for the regulators.
	Let us consider Lords amendments Nos. 20 and 24 and amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 20. Some anxieties were expressed when the measure was previously discussed in the House about the lack of a right of appeal against the director's decisions. Noble Lords in the other place shared those concerns. There was a general, cross-party concern that judicial review should not be the only recourse against the director's decision. We understand those anxieties and have been especially keen to achieve two objectives in responding to them.
	First, any decision about an access plan should be the director's. We accept that the director could make a mistake, although we expect him or her to take care to avoid that. Lords amendment No. 20 would provide for the director to be asked to reconsider. However, it would not remove the director's final say on agreeing a plan. That power would not be given to a third party.

Simon Thomas: The amendments would also apply to Wales and give the Assembly the right to appoint someone to conduct a review of a conditional decision by the office in Wales, where there is no director as such. I welcome the Government's acceptance of the amendments, which put in place the necessary checks and balances. They allow the House to continue to support the Minister's line on other Lords amendments so that OFFA and the equivalent body in Wales have the power to ensure that the access plans work.

Alan Johnson: That is our intention, and I value that contribution by the hon. Gentleman, who made an equally valuable contribution in Committee.
	The first objective was to ensure that the director had the final say. The second was to avoid any process that required the setting up of a permanent, brand new tribunal or panel for what we think will be a tiny number of appeals. This amendment fits the bill in that regard, because it allows the Secretary of State to identify and appoint people who would be able to review a decision of the director, but who would be paid only for the time that they spent conducting reviews. I would expect the review process to be entirely paper-based.

Alan Howarth: An additional important point about the appeal system that the Government are introducing is that it will be cheaper and more accessible for those who wish to use it. It will be much less cumbrous and formidable than judicial review. Is not that an important justification for it?

Alan Johnson: Yes, I think it is. Indeed, the process mirrors arrangements that already work very well with Ofsted. However, on the right to go for judicial review, once the director's provisional decision has been reviewed and if the director sticks to that decision, that option will remain for people to pursue, although it will be a rather expensive option, as Members in this House and the other place have said.

Tim Collins: The Minister said that he expected the review process to be "entirely paper-based". The amendment simply provides a power for measures to be specified in regulations. Is he saying, therefore, that he expects the regulations to specify that there would be no possibility of oral hearings, even if those holding the appeal and those appealing to the panel thought that such hearings would be appropriate?

Alan Johnson: I do not think that I would go that far. It is an expectation that, generally, we would deal with these matters in an inexpensive and non-time-consuming way. I have not thought as far ahead as the framing of the regulations, but I think that it would probably be wrong if we insisted that every single case had to be paper-based. I hope that, in saying that, I am not making a rod for my own back when the regulations come before the House.
	Lords amendment No. 24 simply puts the provisions into the commencement clause of the Bill. We also want to take this opportunity to do a little tidying up of the amendments. Amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No.20 make it clear that the appeals process should extend to decisions to approve a plan. That was always the intention, but amendments tabled in another place made it rather hard to achieve by removing the whole section involved. This is a sensible system—as I have said, it is similar to the one that works successfully for Ofsted—and I commend the amendments to the House.

Tim Collins: The bulk of the comments to be made from this Dispatch Box this afternoon will be made by my estimable hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), but I did not want to miss an opportunity to reunite the happy band of brothers and sisters who served on the Committee—that was a very convivial time—and to exchange views once again with the Minister. I hope that he will forgive me when I say that I am confident that he will be in the Cabinet after the next reshuffle. I can think of no member of Her Majesty's Administration more deserving of being in the Cabinet, after the way in which he has handled our deliberations on the Bill. I promise him that I do not intend to ruin his career by saying that, and I am sorry if I just have.
	The amendments tackle a number of issues, and I shall begin as the Minister closed by considering those that deal with the provision of an appeals procedure against decisions reached by the director for access. We welcome the proposals for the appeals procedure that were introduced in another place, and the fact that the Government have been gracious, both here and in another place, in conceding the need for such a procedure.
	I should like to place on record that our preference would have been to have a procedure that was wholly independent of the Secretary of State rather than one involving people appointed by him, and we would like to ensure that the procedure will be robust. None the less, the Government have made a concession on this, and it has been welcomed by the universities. The Government are to be commended for listening to the arguments that were advanced on that issue both here and in the other place.
	Generally, the Bill has come back from the other place a better Bill than it was when it departed from here. I hope that that will still be the case even after we have voted on various issues, because the Government have accepted some amendments but not others. The Bill is better than it was, but, lest anyone should be concerned, we remain opposed to its fundamental underlying principles. We are merely seeking to ameliorate provisions that would otherwise be damaging.
	I smiled wryly to myself when the Minister referred to the undesirability of one of the amendments introduced in another place, which he said would lie "in perpetuity" on the face of the Bill. We shall disagree on whether this legislation is going to last even 12 months beyond the next general election, and, even though I am sure that it will be regarded in future years as the Johnson memorial Act, I am not sure that it will lie "in perpetuity", whether amended or not.

Graham Allen: I share the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the conduct in Committee. It was an extremely helpful and rational exercise. Since he occupies the position that he does for his party, however, and having raised the spectre of abolition if his party were to come to power, it is incumbent on him to make it clear to my constituents, many of whom will benefit from a £3,000 a year grant, whether that grant would then have a question mark over it. Will he make it absolutely clear what his policy is on that?

Tim Collins: I was merely making it clear that the position has not altered. The hon. Gentleman will remember what was said from this side of the House in previous stages of our deliberations, which was that we would publish our full alternative proposals later this year, and that they would provide clear answers to every question that the hon. Gentleman might have. In parenthesis, I would like to point out that, while it is true that his Government are giving some of his constituents £3,000 a year in grants, they are also requiring them to pay £3,000 a year in fees. Some people would regard that package as not entirely generous, overall.

James Clappison: Would my hon. Friend also find it helpful to remind the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman—I mean the hon. Gentleman; he should be a right hon. Gentleman—that the £3,000 grant to which they are entitled will taper out at a family income of the grand total of £22,000. Beyond that level, families will still have the £3,000 in fees to find?

Tim Collins: My hon. Friend, as ever, makes an extremely powerful case. I am not sure that he and I will immediately be leafleting the constituency of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) to make that point, although there might be an opportunity to do so at some point. By the way, I do understand his other point. Without seeking to prejudice decisions that are in the hands of the Prime Minister, I cannot think of an hon. Gentleman on the Labour Benches who would more befit the title of right hon. Gentleman than the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, and perhaps that will be corrected in due course.

Peter Bradley: rose—

Tim Collins: We are having such a love-in here this afternoon that there are clearly other volunteers eager to see whether they receive my commendation. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Peter Bradley: I want to correct the impression that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) just created. It is not the families who will be required to pay back the £3,000 a year in fees, but the graduate, once they are earning above a certain threshold, and on an interest-free basis. That is a fairly generous settlement. Perhaps when the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend understand that, they will agree.

Tim Collins: I am sure that that is what the hon. Gentleman believes, but we shall see, at the time of the next election, whether that is what students, parents and others believe. He might find that his view, which is held by only a narrow majority in his parliamentary party, is not held by a majority in the country as a whole.
	I want to discuss Lords amendment No. 5. One reason for my praising the Minister earlier is that he is good at departing from an official brief, putting points in his own way, listening to debates and answering responsibly, so this failing on his part is uncharacteristic. He advanced what sounded like a bureaucratic argument against the amendment, which is, in effect, "It's not that we think there is anything in the civil service code that should not apply to the appointment of the director of OFFA. It's just that, since he is not technically a civil servant, we don't think that that is the right code to apply to him. It should be another code."
	In addition to the welcome general sentiments expressed in the other place and by the Minister this afternoon in terms of the appointment being made on the basis of merit and proper access—it would be rather ironic if the director for fair access was appointed following a procedure that did not involve fair access—it would be helpful if the Minister explained whether there are any specific requirements in the civil service code that he would not want to apply to the Secretary of State's appointment in this instance?
	I leave aside the question whether the post is purely that of a civil servant or that of a regulator. Are there any specific points that the Minister thinks it would be damaging, unwise or unacceptable to the Government to apply? If he clarifies whether this is simply a bureaucratic point, we can argue about whether it is an important bureaucratic point. It would be helpful to delve below the surface to see whether there is more to be found there.
	The meat of the debate—in fairness to the Minister, the meat of his remarks—relates to Lords amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17. We had an interesting debate involving a number of the Minister's Back Benchers. It struck me that a review of proceedings in the other place shows a reverse of the pressure being put on Ministers there compared with that being put on the Minister here. In the other place, not only Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, but Cross-Benchers and, indeed, the majority of Labour Back Benchers who spoke around the subject of the powers, functions and role of the regulator, put overwhelming pressure on the Government to recognise the need for academic freedom and the need to reduce the burdensome nature of what many in higher education fear will come from OFFA.
	As a result of that, a very significant and welcome concession was made—the Minister did not refer to it, but it is certainly welcome on this side of the House, although it may not be universally welcome on his—that the Government should write into the Bill specifically a requirement that the director of OFFA will not have a role in the criteria for admissions.
	We talked around that issue during debates in Committee, and the Minister would go only so far as saying that admissions policies would not be a matter on which the director could intervene. Moving beyond that to say that admissions criteria shall not be a matter for the director is a welcome concession. I hope that we have an opportunity to talk about it, although I am not sure that we will.
	The point about Lords amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17 from the other place is that they pushed the Government a little further in that direction. What became clear from our debate earlier is that the majority of those who intervened from the Government side of the House—there was one exception—are arguing that the director of OFFA should have more teeth, be more interventionist, be more activist and deploy, to use terminology used earlier, sticks as well as carrots. It was also suggested that there should be no question of any further removal of tooth or gum. I think that that was another analogy that was used.
	I do not envy the Minister in this respect. He is trying to balance not only the interests of higher education and the interests of those of his Back Benchers who are concerned to try to persuade higher education that its primary duty is to get people in on some basis other than academic merit, but what Labour Back Benchers are saying in one House of this Parliament and what they are saying in the other.
	The point about Lords amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17 is that they would not have the damaging effects that the Minister set out. I understand why he does not like them, but he is slightly overstating the case, if I may say so, in saying that they are as absurd as he suggests. They would further put in place some protections for higher education institutions against the director of OFFA. That is explicitly the intention of the other place.
	The Minister slightly gave the game away when he said that the Government want to move away from the current situation in which wider participation agreements are made between universities and the Higher Education Funding Council. The amendments would take things back much closer to the current system in which HEFC, acting as something of a barrier between the politicians in Whitehall and universities, can try to ensure that proper participation strategies are pursued, but in a way that does not interfere with universities' freedoms.
	Although it is pretty clear from what the Minister said that the Government are not minded to accept the amendments on this occasion, I hope that they may be prepared to be persuaded to look again at the matter, were the other place to return to it in similar vein. They have made welcome concessions on OFFA, and the logic of those concessions is that we ought to have a genuinely light-touch OFFA regime.
	The Minister said—this, again, is the balancing act that he is trying to preserve—that he wants a light touch, not a soft touch. It almost goes without saying that we on the Conservative Benches want an OFFA with no touch, because we do not want an OFFA at all. However, if we are to have an OFFA, it should be as non-interventionist as possible.
	It is important to leave time for others to contribute to this important debate, so, in conclusion, I hope that the Minister recognises the fact that the Government's attitude in the other place was very welcome as they were prepared to concede ground on a number of points. They will do themselves even more favours, with the higher education world in particular, if they are prepared to reconsider the spirit behind amendments that they have said this afternoon that they cannot accept.

David Rendel: I, too, want to start by commending the Minister on how he conducted the Government's affairs in Committee. That is probably no commendation as far as he is concerned, in that the Prime Minister will not want him to be supported more on some occasions by Members on this side of the House than by Members on his own side. Nevertheless, it is sensible and right to put on record our gratitude for how he handled things, not least his acceptance of significant changes to the Bill.
	It is important that we in the House are used sensibly and that we try to make good amendments, even if we disagree with a Bill as a whole. We sadly failed on Second Reading to have the Bill taken out altogether—although by a very small margin, I remind the Minister—so it is good news that he was prepared to accept an amendment in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and I could have been knocked down with a feather when we suddenly found out that one of our proposals was being accepted by the Government. We certainly had not expected that, but it was very welcome and it is also welcome that the Government have now agreed to accept at least some amendments from the other place, which have undoubtedly improved the Bill.
	In the spirit of conciliation and as I am praising the Minister, may I say that, despite our earlier efforts to change how the regulator is to be appointed through insisting on the civil service regulations, we see that there are merits in the Government's arguments on this point? I am therefore prepared to concede that perhaps their arguments in favour of the Nolan proposals should now be accepted. I would no longer wish to argue against that part of the Bill.
	The amendments made in the other place are worthwhile in general, however. They come close to the proposals that we made in Committee and in this place in arguing that there is little point in setting up a new regulator outside HEFC and that all the functions to be fulfilled by OFFA could equally well be fulfilled within HEFC. That, I remind the Minister, would be a much less bureaucratic way of dealing with ensuring fair access to universities. After all, HEFC will, I understand, provide a lot of the personnel for OFFA through secondment, and it will provide all the funding that will go through OFFA and all the offices. It appears that most of the functions of OFFA will be dealt with through HEFC, so setting it up as an entirely separate body seems rather unnecessary. However, that argument has perhaps been lost. Let us at least accept that the amendments get as close as we are now going to be allowed to get, given that the matter has now gone through the other place.
	We all recognise, of course, that the whole point about OFFA was originally to be a sort of sop to the Chancellor and some of his supporters, who were worried about access. It is still there, I guess, because the Government insist on having this sop. That is a pity, but let us make it as good as we can meanwhile.

Graham Allen: In terms of making education a continuum, the hon. Gentleman will know as well as the rest of us that people often miss out and fail at the transition point in education—on entering school at five, and at the transitions between primary and secondary school, secondary and further education and secondary and higher education. Would not a more consistent approach be for Ofsted to do the whole structural analysis and review, throughout the whole education system, rather than having bits and pieces of regulatory bodies here and there? Would that not help everyone to come to terms with the system as a comprehensive whole?

David Rendel: I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but he seems to be making an entirely new suggestion that did not come before the Committee at all. Perhaps the Committee stage of the Bill would have been the moment to make that suggestion if he had really intended to do so. Certainly, I have not thought about it—it comes to me entirely new. I hesitate to answer him directly, but I would have thought that starting to introduce Ofsted to the university sector would be going further than his Government, let alone us, would want.
	Our problem with the way in which OFFA is being set up, and the reason we would prefer the powers to remain with HEFC, is that it seems punitive and almost vindictive in terms of the universities. The powers of OFFA seem to be there to punish universities for doing the wrong thing, rather than to encourage them to do the right thing. The idea of fining universities seems unnecessary, as HEFC should already have the power to refuse the right to charge top-up fees, which should be sufficient to ensure that access plans are worth while, and that they provide better access for those who come from less traditional backgrounds and from some of the poorer communities in our country. If we are to have OFFA, surely it would be better were it about promoting, encouraging and helping to install best practice throughout universities, rather than fining those universities that fail to comply properly.

Peter Bradley: A few minutes ago, the hon. Gentleman talked about the Chancellor of the Exchequer and those who are concerned about access as if they were a small minority. I would hope that his party, like Labour Members, was concerned about broadening access. What does he mean by a traditional background?

David Rendel: First, of course, we are worried about access, which is why we have made various suggestions, not least that top-up fees should not be introduced at all. That is one of the reasons why access will be restricted for certain groups in our community, particularly those who come from non-traditional backgrounds. I apologise if I said traditional when I meant non-traditional. To be honest, I cannot remember—I may have misused the word, and I apologise if I did. Certainly, I was talking about those who come from backgrounds in which family members have not traditionally been sent to university.
	The Minister claimed that there would be a lot of extra bureaucracy as a result of the amendments from the other place. My view is that asking universities to include access plans in their overall strategic plans is not a matter of great extra bureaucracy. Indeed, it is really common sense. It seems to me natural that any university that tries to provide an overall strategic plan for its future is bound to want to include in such a strategic plan some sort of plan for access, which should be part of its evolution strategy. I would have thought that it was obvious that that would happen anyway. Simply allowing that to be used as the access plan that can then be examined by HEFC or OFFA, whichever of them ultimately has the power to do so, would not introduce extra bureaucracy; indeed, it would be easier than the Government's plans.
	The amendments from the other place do all that is necessary to ensure fair access. As I mentioned a moment ago, we are as keen as anyone else that there should be fair access. A number of statements and speeches that we have made on this subject over the last year have proved that time and again. We are keen to see fair access and widening access to those who come from non-traditional backgrounds. We believe that the Lords amendments ensure fair access and that the House should leave them as they are.

James Clappison: May I endorse the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) regarding the Minister and the way in which he has taken this Bill through the House, which, in addition to my earlier, sincerely meant remarks about the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), continues the spirit of friendship expressed during consideration of the Bill?
	I am afraid that the same spirit does not extend to the Bill itself. Welcome though the concessions made in the other place are, I remain concerned about the effects of the Bill and the way in which those will be reinforced by what the Government are asking us to do this afternoon, as far as the amendments are concerned. I apologise to the Minister for missing his opening remarks about Lords amendment No. 5. Were it to increase bureaucracy, that would be very worrying, because the Bill is already bureaucratic enough. In relation to Lords amendment No. 17, and the other amendments concerning OFFA, I am really concerned. As I put it to the Minister in my intervention, I have been and remain concerned about what will happen in practice when OFFA gets up and running, and the approach that universities will be compelled to take. The Minister said that universities are keen to improve access and set milestones—well, my goodness me, they will have to be, if we consider the apparatus that the Government have put in place.
	Of course, universities do a great deal to broaden access. As has been mentioned, the Russell group universities—particularly Oxford and Cambridge—already do a great deal to increase access and to promote themselves as widely as possible. As the right hon. Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) implied in his intervention, however, there is a limit to how much universities can achieve in determining their admissions through trying to generate extra applications, if admissions are genuinely decided on merit. There is a limit to what they can do to change, in some cases, deep-rooted cultural factors and a lack of aspiration, which we would all agree needs to be increased.
	At the end of the day, universities will be judged on admissions. That much was implicit in some of the interventions that we heard from Labour Members on whether universities have complied with milestones. That is what worries me in relation to Lords amendment No. 17 and the Government's insistence that the regulator will have powers to enforce his will on universities and to enforce the milestones. My goodness me, the universities will certainly be concerned about that. They face fines, as the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) mentioned, but on top of that, they fear that they will not be allowed to charge the variable fee at all. That establishes a clear nexus between the financial pressure on universities and the university admissions system. That is unhealthy, and, in the long run, inconsistent—and will prove to be so—with admissions purely on merit.
	The amendments and the whole bureaucratic apparatus being put in place form an amazing edifice. The Government, through the charging of fees, are putting the strongest possible economic disincentive on the very families that they propose they want to help. Families on moderate incomes will find themselves facing for the first time substantial fees. I do not want to go too far down that road but it is relevant to the amendment because it calls into question—

Peter Bradley: indicated dissent.

James Clappison: The hon. Gentleman thinks that the answer is that the fees will be repaid by students only on graduation. He can try to sell that as a deal to families in his constituency on an average income of, say, £20,000 or £25,000. At the moment, families on a combined income of £25,000 do not have to pay the variable fee. Therefore he is creating a debt for those students that they will have to pay. Under present arrangements, apart from the standard fee, they do not have to pay that.

Peter Bradley: Does not the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, for school leavers with ability from low-income backgrounds, one of the most difficult barriers to accessing university is the up-front costs that they face—the student living costs? Does he acknowledge the contribution that the reinstatement of the maintenance grant will make to removing that barrier from that very large body of school leavers?

James Clappison: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman take the case of the family on a combined income of £25,000 and look in a little more detail at the matter. I do not think that he served on the Committee, so he will not have gone through the Bill in detail, and I can understand that. Such families are simply not eligible under the new maintenance grant arrangements. He may look puzzled, but if he looks at the Government's figures, and the Minister will confirm this, the new maintenance grant tapers out at about £22,000.

Peter Bradley: It does not.

James Clappison: I am afraid that it does. On the Government's own figures, the new maintenance grant tapers out at above £22,000. Students will continue to get some remission of fees, as they do at present, but they will not be eligible above that level. A debt is being created. For the first time, they will have to pay the variable element of fees.
	I find it amazing that students from households that the hon. Gentleman mentioned will be given that tremendous disincentive. He mentions what those students look at. One of the biggest disincentives for students from families on low incomes is how much it will cost and how much indebtedness they will incur. Through these proposals, for a family on an income of £25,000, he is quadrupling the amount—albeit paid back on graduation—that will have to be paid back for the cost of education.

Graham Allen: I am sure that an accurate figure will be put on the record by the Minister but, from memory, the taper does not run out until about £32,000. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like all of us, wants the people who will be eligible for a grant to understand their full eligibility, and that he is not intending to scare some of the very families whom we are trying to persuade that their youngsters should take up higher education. I am sure that he will be grateful to get a definitive correction from the Minister when he replies to the debate.

James Clappison: I was talking about the new maintenance grant that the Government are putting in place. It is right that students will continue to receive some help with remission up to £33,000—I think that that is the figure. They get that at present, but above £22,000 they will not be entitled to any of the new maintenance grant.

Alan Johnson: indicated dissent.

James Clappison: The Minister can shake his head but it is there in the Government's own figures. The new maintenance grant will taper out at about £22,000. Above that, students will still get the help that they get at the moment for fee remission; that help is there at the moment.
	We were told that the new maintenance grant was the unique selling point of the Government's proposals. That tapers out at about £22,000. Above that level, the only help that the families will get will be the help that they get at present, based on fee remission of £1,200. Therefore the amount that a student from a family on an income of £25,000 will have to pay will be quadrupled. It is fair to say that that will be upon graduation.
	I remember all those years when the Labour party campaigned against tuition fees in general and variable fees in particular. It campaigned against the previous Government on that basis, even when they were not proposing to bring in variable fees or tuition fees. The Labour party campaigned consistently against that. I do not remember a distinction being made at the time between up-front fees and fees payable on graduation. That was never mentioned. The Labour party was concerned about the effect on students.

Peter Bradley: I am keen to correct another misapprehension under which the hon. Gentleman is labouring. The fee is not repayable on graduation. It is repayable on an income-contingent basis. That is a crucial issue. It is repayable when the graduate begins to reap the income dividend of the degree that he or she has achieved.

James Clappison: If the previous Government had introduced such fees upon an income-contingent basis, I do not think that the Labour party, which was then in opposition, would have said that that was the solution. It was the principle of paying for education that it was concerned about, whether the payment was up front or through extra indebtedness.
	It is amazing that the Government should put in place a bureaucratic edifice after creating strong economic pressure entirely in the opposite direction. There can be nothing more likely to put off students from families on low incomes who do not traditionally send their youngsters to university than the prospect of vast debt. I do not think that the Government edifice that the amendments put in place will succeed in counteracting that pressure. We will see some serious distortions in university admissions, from which a very large number of families will be the loser. They will have the opportunity to pass their judgment shortly.

Alan Johnson: I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) for his gracious comments. He put me in the Cabinet and then on to the Opposition Back Benches all in about one minute. It was a bit of a career change but, at the risk of turning the Chamber into a mutual admiration society, I congratulate him on his well-deserved promotion and I am sure that he will rise further through the ranks of the shadow Cabinet over the years to come.
	The hon. Gentleman rightly said that the Bill has come back in better shape from the other place. May I place it on record that that was due to a number of factors, the most significant of which was the role played by my noble Friend Baroness Ashton, who led the debate in the other place superbly and with great distinction?
	I have a short time left to me. The hon. Gentleman, almost in passing, talked about Lords amendment No. 5 and said that I gave a bureaucratic reply. He asked whether there were any points within the civil service code that I would question. The whole point of the Lords amendment, I presume, was the one significant part of that code that I do object to, the part that removes the role of the Secretary of State in appointing the regulator. While it was a bureaucratic point—I accept that—it is significant that the civil service commissioners themselves believe that it is the wrong process to use in relation to the regulator that we are setting up, which is a non-departmental Government body.
	The hon. Gentleman raised concerns about Lords amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17. We have tried hard. He mentioned the acceptance of Lords amendment No. 13, which puts the fact that the regulator will not be involved in admissions in the Bill, but the amendments that he referred to would completely destroy the office of the regulator. That is why he supports those amendments. They would mean that the regulator had no sanctions, even if the university said that it was going to charge £2,000 and decided to charge £3,000—even, I presume, although I am not absolutely sure, if it charged more than the £3,000 cap. There would be no method for the regulator to apply any sanctions if we accepted Lords amendment No. 15. It is also technically deficient. It goes to the heart of everything we have attempted to do in relation to the regulator.
	I appreciate the gracious comments of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), too. I also appreciate his support for Lords amendment No. 5. He presented two arguments, one of which was presented by Liberal Democrats in Committee, which was about the Higher Education Funding Council for England taking over the role of the regulator, so that we did not need to set up the Office for Fair Access. I said at the time, in Committee, that that was not a completely outrageous suggestion, and it was one that we considered. However, we thought that it would mix up a funding body with a regulator, and on balance we felt that that was the wrong route to take. The hon. Gentleman's second argument, however, on the access regulator and the issues that he perceived to be involved, was—
	It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
	Lords amendment No. 5 disagreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
	Government amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 20 agreed to [Special Entry.].
	Lords amendment No. 20, as amended, agreed to.
	Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 23 agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 23, as amended, agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 15.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Alan Johnson.]
	The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 149.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.

Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you help colleagues and I—

Michael Fabricant: Me—accusative.

Simon Hughes: Colleagues and me, correct. We came to vote, but by the time we arrived, the Tellers had disappeared. There were four Opposition Members whose votes were not counted. Can you advise us, Mr. Deputy Speaker? [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can probably help the House on this matter. I obviously express my regret to the hon. Member and others who were deprived of having their vote counted. However, the Chair has to accept the Tellers' report. There is a system in operation whereby the Tellers are informed whether the Lobby has been emptied of all those who were willing to come out and be counted. [Interruption.] If an honest mistake has been made, it has been made, but the result must stand as it is.

Simon Hughes: I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that honest mistakes can be made, but let me make it absolutely clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), other colleagues and I were not only ready, but very willing to vote—and in the right place at the right time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It therefore becomes even more a matter of mystery why, within the time available, everyone had not exited from the Lobby. I really do not think that I can add anything more to that. [Interruption.]
	Order. There will be more opportunities for hon. Members to vote.
	Lords amendment No. 16 disagreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 17.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Gillian Merron.]
	The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 164.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.

Clause 23
	 — 
	Duty of Secretary of State to Impose Condition as to Student Fees, etc

Lords amendment No. 3.

Alan Johnson: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this the House may consider Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of the Lords amendment.

Alan Johnson: The Government have considered carefully the Lords amendment on gap years. We cannot accept it for technical reasons, but we accept the principle behind it. In combination, our amendments in lieu would achieve the same policy intent, but in a more tightly drafted way.
	We have previously argued that the decision on whether to exempt gap year students in 2005 from higher fees is more properly a question for individual universities than for the Government. The point of variable fees was to give universities flexibility to respond to a perceived threat. However, we have been swayed both by the arguments in this House and the other place and by the stance taken by the universities themselves. They have made it clear through their support for the Lords amendment that they support a sector-wide response on this particular issue and are content for the Government to legislate.
	By providing the protection in the amendments, we avoid the risk, however small, that some students will choose to forgo a gap year in 2005, thus placing extra pressure on places in the higher education system that year. The advantage to students of putting the provision into the Bill is certainty about the fee regime and the student support package to which they are entitled no matter which university they attend. The students will qualify for the same student support arrangements that will exist for students who began their courses before 2006 but are still studying in that year. That includes eligibility for a deferred loan to pay their lower standard rate fees, eligibility for the £1,000 grant and fee remittance of approximately £1,200.
	The Government amendments in lieu also address the situation of the very small number of students who, because of a successful appeal against their A-level results, miss out on a university place in 2005 and have to start instead in 2006. We might fairly describe that as an enforced gap year.
	I shall say a little about how our amendments in lieu differ from the Lords amendment so that right hon. and hon. Members may be confident about the need for them. First, the Lords amendment includes a reference to "years", which we have replaced with "academic year", in line with the rest of that part of the Bill.
	Secondly, the Lords amendment refers to "designated" courses. To be sure that we cover a broader group of students who might wish to take gap years in 2005, the Government amendments refer to "qualifying" courses, which are the subject of separate regulations and which is the correct description of courses for which student support is available.
	Thirdly, we have structured the Government amendments to reflect the structure of the rest of part 3 of the Bill—that of an access plan, with the associated right to charge higher fees, linked into the condition of grant in clause 23(1). Our amendment would mean that an access plan cannot allow a higher education institution to charge higher fees to gap year students in 2006, which would make matters watertight.
	Fourthly, the Lords amendment contained no provision for sanctions should a higher education institution seek to charge higher fees to the gap year cohort. Those are the very students whom the amendment sought to protect, but it provided no enforcement arrangements. The amendments in lieu correct that by making it clear that clause 23(1)(b) and the sanctions contained in clause 21(3)(b) will apply to that cohort.
	Finally, the Lords amendment was based on the first set of regulations that we made in 1998 when a similar arrangement applied, rather than on the regulations as subsequently amended.

Phil Willis: We are grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has dealt with this issue. Will he confirm that for a student who goes up to university in 2006, the old fee regime will apply to all three years, or to four or five years for, for example, a medic or an architect? Alternatively, will just the first year be covered, after which they go on to the higher fee regime?

Alan Johnson: It applies to all the years—three for a traditional honours degree course, or four for chemistry and so on.

Anne Campbell: I am interested in the fee to be charged to the gap year student, the way in which eligibility for a grant is affected and the debt repayment terms, which are advantageous for many students. Will the new conditions applying to grants, fee repayment and so on apply, or will the old conditions pertain?

Alan Johnson: As always, my hon. Friend makes her point clearly, and it is an important point. We will treat the students as if they started their university course in 2005. They cannot have the best of both worlds. They will have the lower fee, the fee remission of £1,200 will continue and they will have access to the £1,000 grant: they will not have access to the larger grant of £2,700. However, if students felt strongly about that, they could take their gap year, reapply to university and become part of the 2006 intake. In that sense, they do have the best of both worlds. The arrangements mean that the 2005 position will be retained in all senses, including the student support package.
	I was explaining about the two sets of regulations. The amendment in the other place would amend the original regulations from 1998, but we changed those regulations in 2000. The regulations differ in the way in which they treat students who change courses between acceptance by a university and the start of the courses a year or more later, either because the original course for which they were accepted no longer exists or because they have decided to take a different course. The second set of regulations is a little less restrictive on what students are allowed to do when changing courses if they are still to qualify for the concession. I am sure that hon. Members would want us to replicate the regime that worked well in 1998, and that is what the amendment in lieu would achieve.

Simon Thomas: I welcome the Minister's comments, although the provisions will apply only to students in England. They will apply to students from Wales who study in England, but we do not yet know what will happen in Wales on the introduction of top-up or additional tuition fees. The National Assembly may introduce them at a later stage, but it has not yet decided to do so. As we need primary legislation to address the issue of gap year students in England, will the Assembly be able to address the issue as it desires under this legislation or will we need another dose of primary legislation here? Is the Minister confident that the Bill gives sufficient powers to the National Assembly to deal with the issue of gap year students in Wales when that matter arises?

Alan Johnson: Sometimes when I cannot immediately think of a response to a question, inspiration strikes, amazingly, when I sit on the Front Bench for a few minutes. I hope that by the end of the debate I will be able to give the hon. Gentleman the answer to his question.

Chris Grayling: The date in the amendments in lieu is 1 August 2005, but that may mean that they do not affect those students who secure a place through the clearing system. If they do not achieve the grades that they expected, but obtain a university place none the less later in August or in September through the clearing system, would they be excluded from the exemption that the amendments in lieu provide?

Alan Johnson: I hope not. We have tried hard to ensure that the exemption applies to students who make their applications in the traditional way and the minority of students who wait for clearing before they make an application. I would have thought that those students would be covered. I understand his point about 1 August, and I may be able to provide a more considered response to that question by the end of the debate.
	I urge the House to reject the Lords amendment, in the best possible spirit, and accept the amendments in lieu.

Chris Grayling: I welcome the Government's decision to accept the principles behind the amendments that were first tabled by me and my hon. Friends, and then by our colleagues in the other place. In the spirit in which the Minister rightly paid tribute to his colleague, Baroness Ashton, for the work that she did, I congratulate Lord Forsyth, who did a tremendous job on this Bill. Many sixth formers should feel great gratitude to him, because his work has contributed to the concessions that the Government are making this afternoon. Those concessions are enormously welcome for those sixth formers and others who have been concerned about the issue.
	The flaw in the Government's original proposals was that anyone leaving school in the summer of 2005 and deciding not to take up their place for a year—as many thousands of young people do—would be forced to start university under the new funding regime, with £3,000 fees, rather than under the old regime with £1,125 fees. Any hon. Member who has visited a school sixth form recently—I have and I am sure that others have done so—and has asked those in the lower sixth, who will be those affected by the issue, about their intentions for 2005 will know that many have decided to go to university straight away and miss out on a gap year. Indeed, the specialist gap years organisation Gap Year Fairs says that the soundings that it has taken in sixth forms suggest that as many as three quarters of those who would normally take a gap year had decided against doing so because they wanted to avoid the higher fee regime that will be in effect from 2006.
	It was not only those planning to take a gap year for the potential experience who were set to lose out as a result of the Government's plans. People do not take a gap year only for the experience. There are many students who work to raise money for their university costs, and they would have also lost out. I await with interest the Minister's clarification on the issue of clearing, because many people only obtain a university place through the clearing system after 1 August. Others find that their results were much better than they expected, so they take a gap year, reapply for a place and start university a year later. I hope that the Minister will address the problem faced by young people in that position. Some, for example, expect to get three Cs, apply for a university course that is realistic given their abilities and then discover that their results are better than that. What will happen to those people? Does the amendment take their situation into account?
	The Government have rightly identified in the amendment the situation of those who appeal against the grades that they have been given. They are also at risk of losing out. I welcome the fact that that has been addressed. What made the situation particularly absurd was that when this same situation arose back in 1998 when university fees were first introduced, the Government did allow transition arrangements that ensured that no student would lose out financially by having a gap year. However, when we debated the issue in Committee and on Report both the Minister and Labour Members were unconvinced. The Minister said that those affected this time had had plenty of notice—three years' notice, he claimed—but no doubt they are the same students who were told at the time of the last general election that the Government would not introduce top-up fees.
	The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) was even more dismissive. He said in Committee that the amendments we were putting forward were for just one group of people in society, and that for many of his constituents a gap year would be working in the shop of the same name to save money for university. Actually, he is right, and the amendments in lieu will make it easier for those of his constituents fortunate enough to go to university. We look forward to more of them doing so. The change will give them the opportunity to work and save money, if they believe that that is the right approach for them.

Graham Allen: I was alluding to the fact that as I represent the constituency that sends the fewest young people to university, most of my constituents do not have the privilege or pleasure of going to university and therefore do not have to make onerous decisions about gap years. Unless the Conservatives come to power and remove the £3,000 grant that will apply to most of the youngsters in my constituency, more and more will probably take up that option and will face the dilemma of what to do in their gap year.

Chris Grayling: In that case, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the changes made to the Bill as the result of our debates on the issue, which will mean that those in his constituency who plan to take a year out to save for university will now have the opportunity to do so in 2005.
	Of course, even when the issue reached the other place, the Government were still lukewarm. The Minister in the Lords—getting warmer—had accepted that there was a problem but said that it should emphatically be left to the universities to do something about it. Happily, their lordships disagreed and the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education has now accepted that they were right.
	Their lordships disagreed because they realised that the proposals would have an impact not simply on students but also on universities. Without the amendments that the Government are proposing today, the next application year—2005—would have been a nightmare for universities. Students who would normally have gone to university in 2006 would have started a year early; tens of thousands more students than usual would have been trying to get into university; and people would have been turned away by universities because there were not enough places. Those students would also have been losers without the amendment.
	What an irony if the Government had refused to accept the wisdom of our arguments. It is hard to see how the view of the Minister and the Secretary of State could have been squared with that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because 2005 is the international year of the volunteer and the Chancellor sees that as a big opportunity to encourage young people to participate actively in helping the developing world and to get involved in worthwhile causes. Recently, he even held a summit at No. 11 Downing street to bring together all kinds of voluntary organisations, to encourage young people to use 2005 as the opportunity to do their bit in the voluntary sector. He talked about the importance of volunteering and of young people offering to volunteer. He talked about students using their gap year to do good work as volunteers. The focus was all on 2005: the international year of the volunteer—the very same year in which the Secretary of State and the Minister had planned to scrap the gap year for so many young people. What nonsense it would have been if the Government had not agreed to this concession today.
	I congratulate the Minister on his belated conversion to our arguments, or perhaps it should be on his decision to succumb to the pressure from No. 11. Either way, those affected will not mind. All the groups of young people to whom I and other Members have spoken will greet the decision with a sigh of relief. It will be hugely welcome. The last time I visited a sixth form in my constituency, I asked for a show of hands from those students who had decided not to take a gap year in 2005: hands went up all over the hall. On that day, I promised those students that we would carry on fighting the battle for them. Thanks to the efforts of our colleagues in another place, the Minister has agreed that we were right and we have won. For that, we, and especially those sixth formers, should be grateful. I congratulate the Minister; we shall be delighted to support the amendments.

David Rendel: I, too, am delighted to support the Government's proposals. We are very pleased that they have changed their mind. As the Minister and others in the House who have been attending to the business know, we have been fighting on the issue for a long time—almost since the suggestion in the White Paper that such a problem might arise. At that time, charities organising gap year placements for young people immediately began writing to us to explain that they felt it might cause them great danger, and that some of them might go to the wall, were there to be one single year when nobody would take a gap year. I am therefore delighted that the Minister has decided to go along with the wishes of many Members about gap years.
	There is no question but that the Government's original plans would have been bad for the tens of thousands of students who wanted to take a gap year in 2005; they would have been bad for the charities, as I pointed out; and they would have been bad for organisations that have come to rely on the voluntary help of gap year students, especially in third-world and deprived countries. The plans would also have been bad for the universities. It came as no surprise when the Minister said that the universities had been pressing for change; without exception, every vice-chancellor to whom I have spoken has told me that they prefer gap year students. On the whole, they tend to be the best students and are obviously more mature than some of those who do not take gap years. They tend to make the best possible use of their university education. The change will benefit the universities, too, so I am delighted that it will be made.
	The most important reason for the change and the one that made the Government's previous position untenable, as I have said on many occasions, is the effect on students who come, in the main, from less traditional university backgrounds and the poorer areas of the country. They would have been excluded from university because in that one year many more applicants—many from the independent schools and the richer parts of the country—would not have taken a gap year and would thus have pushed out some of the more marginal students from less traditional backgrounds. It was for their sake that the change was so necessary. It is also in line with the Government's efforts to widen access to universities.

Anne Campbell: Given that universities are under some obligation to try to increase the number of students from non-traditional backgrounds, I fail to see why a glut of applications in any one year would mean that the less traditional students were less likely to get places than those from the independent sector.

David Rendel: If the hon. Lady studies the statistics she will see that, on the whole, students from less traditional backgrounds and from the poorer parts of the country tend to get into university with rather lower grades than some of those from the independent schools, who tend to take a gap year. At present, almost by definition, a student taking a gap year will have high A-level grades; they would not try to take a gap year unless they were sure that they would be accepted for a deferred place. In order to be accepted for a deferred university place, one almost certainly has to have better grades, so on the whole gap year students will inevitably push out the more marginal students with lower A-level grades. That is why the original plans would have been bad for inclusivity.

Tim Boswell: But does the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that gap year organisations are anxious to increase the number of their participants from the less privileged socio- economic groups for reasons of balance, so Government supporters should not misinterpret the amendment as being class-slanted?

David Rendel: Absolutely. I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's point and I hope that I was not misleading the House by what I said. I certainly accept that it is extremely important to widen the group of people from whom those who take gap years are selected. We should try to give everybody that opportunity whether or not they come from traditional university backgrounds and whether they are rich or poor. The effect of a gap year on a young person is equally beneficial whatever their background, so I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's point.
	The Government advanced two arguments against our original proposal. One has already been mentioned—that students had long enough to think about the situation. I found that argument slightly hard to understand, because the longer students had to think about it, the more likely they were to realise that taking a gap year was a bad idea. They would be more likely to refuse to take a gap year, thus causing the problem to get worse. I did not understand why having a long time to think about that would help the Government's original point of view.
	Despite being grateful to the Minister for the change that he has made, I cannot resist teasing him a little by pointing out that his other argument was that, in practice, a lot of people would be so attracted by the new regime that they would all suddenly go on gap years instead of those who wanted to do so under the old regime. Given the move he has made, perhaps he now accepts that that is a load of nonsense. It is certainly a load of nonsense, given the survey that we undertook in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), which clearly showed that the number of those who want the new financial regime is negligible. We found one person, out of some 300, who wanted to take a gap under the new regime. I hope that we have laid that one to rest at last.

Alan Johnson: I just want to make a few remarks. If I entered into the debate, I should be arguing from a previous position: much of the debate has been about the arguments that I was putting before I was persuaded to go down this route. So it would be perverse to go through all those arguments again, but the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) tempted me to do so by over-egging the pudding. I think that "The Dambusters March" was bursting out at the end in terms of the huge achievement.
	The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the cut-off date of 1 August, and I was hoping for some further time to inspire me to respond. Such places must be offered before 1 August 2005, so clearing places offered before that date would be covered. Why? The reasons are, first, that that was the case in 1998, so we used that date, and secondly, that date was included in the Lords amendment. So the triumph in the Lords that he mentioned contained that date, but that gives me some cause for concern for the reasons that he gave.
	Given the point about university flexibility, however, the universities could still recognise that there was unfairness. Looking back to what happened in 1998, when they would not have had such discretion—they would still have had to charge the £1,000 fee—we can be safe in agreeing to that part of the Lords amendment, replicating what we did in 1998, but I need to make some further inquiries, and if we find some problems we can ask the sector to resolve them itself.

Chris Grayling: I ask the Minister to bear in mind two factors. First, A-level results do not come out until mid-August, so it would be impossible for students to go through the clearing process before 1 August. Secondly, I remind him that the amendments that we tabled in the House set a cut-off date of 1 April 2006, which would have allowed the whole clearing process to be completed in plenty of comfort before unconditional offers were generated by the following year's A-levels. If it is possible for him to reconsider and make any necessary modification before the Bill receives Royal Assent, assuming that there is a little bit of further debate in the Lords, it would be appreciated.

Alan Johnson: That is a very sensible point, and it allows me to say a few words before I take the next intervention.

Phil Willis: Such a concession was given in the 1998 legislation—the wording is the same as that included in that legislation—and reference was made to the offer of a place on a qualifying course, as is stated in paragraph (a). In fact, that does not affect the clearing process, provided that the application reaches the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service in time. Students can be offered a place that is conditional on achieving certain grades. If they do not achieve those grades, the offer remains, but students go into the clearing system thereafter. I had not considered the difficulty until it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), and it arises with those people who do not apply at all before they get their results and who, depending on their results, apply for a place and ask for a gap year. A very small group of students is involved, but it would be worth covering them during whatever deliberations the Minister can have.

Alan Johnson: I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which clarifies one of the aspects raised by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. I recognise that a small minority is involved, which includes a charming girl who works in my office who did not fill in an UCAS form and waited until clearing to apply to university. I will take advantage of the time that we have before the Bill returns to the other place to find out whether we need to do anything differently, but I re-emphasise that that date was used both in 1998 and in the Lords amendment.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) had replayed to him the very valid points that he made in Committee about who takes gap years and how we can help youngsters from poorer backgrounds to receive the benefit of a gap year, even though they may not go on to university. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), reminds me that we have been operating a pilot scheme precisely to discover whether we could provide 18-year- olds from poorer backgrounds with the opportunity to do voluntary work in that way. I guess that it could be said that we are bringing gap years to the people, using that pilot. Those points were worth mentioning.
	The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) made two points during his little tease. I should say, just to set the record straight, that we argued that the gap year provision was essential in 1998, because the legislation was put before Parliament in 1997 and became law when students would have already signed up and made commitments to their gap years. The circumstances now are different, not because students have had longer to think about it but because they knew what was coming, unlike the students in 1997–98, who had no idea that a fees regime would be put in place.
	There was some logic to the argument that there might be students who wanted to start in 2006 because of the package available at that point. What I had not realised is that, in a fit of outstanding generosity, we were going to abolish all up-front fees from 2006. Many Labour Members understood that students who took a gap year and started in 2006 would get the new regime of deferred fees, whereas those starting in 2005 would have to pay £1,000 up front for every year of their course, which would usually last three years. However, we said in the White Paper that there would be no up-front fees after 2006—we had already made that decision and started work on that basis. In a sense, that makes the argument advanced in Committee by Opposition Members that there would be a gap year problem stronger. However, students who start in 2005 will pay £1,000 up front for one year, and the £1,000 fees for the following two years of an average course will be deferred. We had not appreciated our own generosity in that respect.
	I should apologise to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), because the thought that entered my mind when I was listening to him was, "We are not absolutely sure." Higher education institutions in Wales could decide to act collectively.

Simon Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister for thinking about the matter. Let me put my concern on the record, in the hope that he will find time in his busy schedule to reflect on it. It seems to me that if the National Assembly wants to help gap year students in Wales after the introduction of tuition fees, what will be needed is primary legislation passed by this place, not regulations made by the Minister. Had the measure been in regulations, the National Assembly would be able to act because the matter would be devolved, but it appears in primary legislation. I want the National Assembly to be able to deal with the matter in Wales, if it wants to. The Minister suggests that a voluntary agreement might suffice, but I would appreciate it if he considered the matter in detail.

Alan Johnson: I shall of course reflect on that important point.
	In conclusion, I urge the House to reject the Lords amendment and to accept the amendments in lieu.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.
	Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 3 agreed to.
	Clause 27
	Sections 22 to 26: supplementary provisions
	Lords amendment No. 4

Alan Johnson: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 2 and the Government motion to disagree.

Alan Johnson: What the two amendments have in common is that they would have an impact on the funding delivered to higher education. I hardly need to remind the House that providing HE institutions with a sustained income stream to address the funding gap in higher education is one of the principal reasons why we have introduced variable fees with a cap of £3,000 to replace the current system of fixed up-front fees of about £1,000. The Government believe that we should give universities greater freedom and flexibility to charge fees within the prescribed limits. The Lords amendments are an odd combination, professing to understand the value of additional fees income to universities on the one hand while taking a substantial chunk of that money away with the other.
	Lords amendment No. 2 would not only stop universities charging higher fees, but abolish all fees after the third year. Not only would it remove the universities' ability to increase fees in the fourth year and beyond but it would take away the fees that they already receive in that period, which raises questions about whether universities would want to continue to run longer courses. They might prefer to close those courses rather than run them without fees. Key courses to be affected include medicine, dentistry, veterinary science, architecture, engineering, modern language courses in which students spend a year abroad, and sandwich courses in which students spend a year working in industry. All those courses are strategically important for the country.
	Abolishing fees beyond the third year would be a major disincentive to universities to offer those long courses. The other place hoped that the amendment accepted on Report would protect such courses, but in fact it would jeopardise them. Third Reading was interesting because it demonstrated that their lordships realised what they had done and were concerned about it. A parallel amendment that would have had the same effect in Wales, for instance, was not pressed to a vote, demonstrating the inconsistency of their actions. An amendment seeking to make the Secretary of State pay for the costs was defeated because it was accepted that there is only one pot of money and, come what may, the higher education sector would end up paying for that ill-considered proposal.
	As for costs, it is difficult to be precise because fees are variable and we do not know yet what universities will charge, but we estimate that Lords amendment No. 2 would cost universities £130 million to £180 million a year, depending on the level of fees charged and the proportion of students on longer courses. As hon. Members will know, we have asked Sir Alan Langlands to conduct a review, "Gateways into the Professions", which will look at the relevant disciplines. Under the amendment, however, his work would be made much harder, with institutions closing such courses before the review was complete.

Tim Boswell: Is it not virtually inconceivable that Sir Alan Langlands would propose limiting the time required for students to reach professional standards on such courses to three years? I do not necessarily accept the argument but the logic appears to be, either do part of the course in three years or do not do it at all.

Alan Johnson: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but Sir Alan Langlands is not looking at changing the length of courses. His role is to look at best practice in both public and private sectors in "Gateways into the Professions" to see what institutions and the Government are doing, and to spread that best practice. The amendment, however, would take £60 million away from universities immediately, so universities that believe there is a funding gap would have that gap extended and their reaction might well be that they could no longer sustain certain courses.

Barry Sheerman: Some of my old friends and colleagues in the House of Lords have great experience of university matters, including funding. I am therefore surprised by the amendment, which is damaging to university finances, as we heard in evidence from the Higher Education Funding Council in the Education and Skills Committee. The British Medical Association produced some extraordinary figures when we debated the Bill in the House on a previous occasion. Are those figures accurate, and is the medical establishment still making those claims?

Alan Johnson: I have not heard too much about the matter since that extraordinary figure—I met the British Medical Association to discuss it—of a debt of £64,000. That has never been justified or substantiated. It seems like "think of a number and double it", literally—Barclays was talking about a debt of £32,000 or £33,000. Although medical students will obviously incur a greater cost because of the length of their course, £64,000 was incredible. My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I do not know whether those arguments were used in the debate in the other place, but if they were, it may have been one of the reasons why many noble Lords regretted the decision they had made and sought, unsuccessfully, to rectify it last night.
	We should recall, too, that the less money universities have in fee income, the less money they can recycle in the form of bursaries and grants to their students, so the amendment militates against widening participation.

Graham Allen: That point was made many times in Committee. Youngsters who currently cannot get to university because there is no support for them would get a £3,000 a year grant—that would apply to most families in my constituency. On top of that, if the universities were properly financed, as my right hon. Friend says, they would receive an additional bursary from the university. Will he write to me and other colleagues and list the universities that are offering such a bursary or, if he cannot answer immediately, will he place that information in the Library? We heard eight or nine examples in Committee, and I am sure that as time has gone by, more universities must be offering more bursaries to assist students from non-traditional backgrounds—that rather patronising expression, which to me means working-class kids—get to university? Will my right hon. Friend tell us if there has been progress?

Alan Johnson: I am pretty sure that there have been no more announcements. The university of Surrey was the last one. That is not surprising because the system that many universities have to go through to determine those factors can sometimes be rather time consuming—I will not use the word "tortuous".

Ian Gibson: Tedious.

Alan Johnson: There speaks the voice of experience. I would not take the fact that there have been no further announcements as a sign that other universities will not offer the same.
	A student studying medicine at Cambridge who comes from the background that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) mentioned would receive a £7,000 package—£3,000 from the state and £4,000 from the university—for the entire length of the course. Under the amendment, the student would stop building up fees after year three of the course, but would still get the Government support and the bursary support—without the money being switched, incidentally. The likely result is that the university, which has control over the bursaries that it offers, would reduce the bursary.

Chris Grayling: The Minister is speaking about people from non-traditional backgrounds. He will recognise, I am sure, that the son or daughter of a teacher who chooses to do a six-year veterinary course in London will run up £3,000 a year in fees plus another £6,000 or £7,000 a year in living costs. Over six years that comes to £60,000. However, the son or daughter of a dustman who goes on to become a merchant banker will get substantial support from the state. The Minister must therefore understand what a problem his proposal represents for those who are on middle incomes in the south-east.

Alan Johnson: That reminds me of an argument that I heard from a medical student on television addressing the Prime Minister round about last February. I was interested in what medical students—not the Government—said about such arguments in the BMA's magazine, BMA News. The whole page was full of critical letters. In one of them a medical student at St. Andrews university wrote:
	"Medical students are in the fortunate position of being almost guaranteed a large income over their lifetime, paid for by the taxpayer.
	It is reasonable that we should make a small contribution towards the cost of our own education if we can afford it."
	Another wrote:
	"Does"—
	I will not mention the girl's name, but the reference is to the person who made the criticism—
	"not realise that she is about to enter a very privileged profession, enjoying a good income and job security? Maybe her next seminar should be on humility."
	The argument about dustmen and so on is well dealt with in that exchange.

Phil Willis: I accept the Minister's point, but will he accept that the professions that require more than a three-year degree—in particular, medics, dentists, architects and vets—are currently dominated by the higher socio-economic groups, particularly ones and twos, and by white, middle-class males? What difference will his proposals make to getting people from all backgrounds, irrespective of their race, creed, colour or financial background, into our hospitals, architectural practices and veterinary surgeries? I cannot find a justification or argument for the envisaged debts on five-year courses attracting people from the lowest financial backgrounds.

Alan Johnson: I am being tempted into a Second Reading debate about the whole question, but the hon. Gentleman raises an important point. In the 36 years of free higher education post-Robbins and pre-Blunkett, the social class gap widened rather than narrowed for all courses, including medicine and architecture, so free higher education with maintenance grants did not close the social class gap. The hon. Gentleman argues that the introduction of variable fees, which will be deferred until after graduation and which all students will pay following the change from fee remission to grants, will inhibit the resolution of the social class gap problem on longer courses, but the majority of Labour Members and I take the view that that is not the case.
	If some aspects of the package were different, the hon. Gentleman's argument might be correct, but when the bright, working-class kid, about whom we have spoken on many occasions, reaches the qualifying, attainment stage when they are 18 years old, they are as well-equipped as someone from a more middle-class background to realise the benefits from studying medicine, architecture or veterinary surgery—incidentally, veterinary surgery is hugely over-subscribed, and there is no sign that fees will make any difference.
	Such young people can make that decision, particularly if they come from the background that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North mentioned, which means that they will receive a £3,000 grant and a bursary from the university. For such students, the fee will be deferred and will be repaid on the basis not of what they owe but of what they earn, and the threshold on repayment will be higher. The regulator will ensure that institutions encourage applications, so universities will become more encouraging and welcoming to applicants who think that they will feel like misfits.
	We are also providing extra money to expand places and to allow 50 per cent. of 18 to 30-year-olds to have the benefit of a university education rather than 44 per cent. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) speaks with passion and from the same perspective as me and other hon. Members, but we disagree about that issue. I am convinced that the solution does not lie in the amendment. There may be an argument about whether fees are appropriate, but to say that, irrespective of the profession, longer courses should not involve fees after year four is not the solution.

Barry Sheerman: I do not want to make my right hon. Friend's life difficult, but it is important to clear up some factual points. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) is wrong to describe medicine as a white, middle-class male profession—he is certainly wrong on gender when it comes to current recruitment. How big is the difference between long courses in dentistry and in medicine, where the fifth and sixth years are paid for by the NHS, and veterinary medicine?

Alan Johnson: The student pays. I am pretty sure that we provide no assistance in those circumstances.

David Rendel: I declare an interest as someone who is married to a GP. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) is right that many of our medics, especially those who enter medical schools nowadays, are female. Does not that counter the Minister's point that all medics may pay much more in fees but will ultimately earn good salaries? Many will not get good salaries because they will take part-time work, at least while they have families. Their salaries will not necessarily be that good. If they marry people who do not earn much, they may have to get a mortgage to buy a surgery as well as a home. They may be in difficult circumstances.

Alan Johnson: That is a valid criticism of some of the loan repayment schemes but not of the measure. The new system is income-contingent. If, for any reason, salaries drop below £15,000, graduates will pay nothing back. There is no real rate of interest and no money is clocking up. Debt is always called in at some stage; under the proposed system, it is never called in. Indeed, after 25 years, it is forgiven. I do not therefore accept the hon. Gentleman's points but the difference of opinion at least reinforced the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) that the gender balance is much better in the medical profession, although there are other aspects to consider.

John Randall: The Minister is presenting some reasonable views. The fact that I can understand them is good if a little worrying. I took a four-year language course, starting a language from scratch. What is the incentive under the new system for someone to study a language at university, which is not one of those taught in school, if the course lasts four years? Are we not in danger of providing a disincentive to people to learn other languages?

Alan Johnson: No. There are problems with specific modern languages but the Langlands review has been set up to consider such issues, among others.
	I do not claim that hon. Members' have not made relevant points about some professions but that the amendment is a blunderbuss that tries to resolve all problems by simply providing for no fees, removing £60 million from the universities immediately and between £130 million and £180 million by 2006. That is not the solution.
	We should have a system whereby courses are accessible and attractive, whatever their length. That needs to be achieved by a proper method of targeted recruitment incentives not by a centralised, blanket, inflexible approach such as that in the amendment. We already have a flexible system that allows us to target support at the subjects and students that most need it, without inflicting financial damage on universities.
	Significant measures already exist to support students on longer courses. That reflects the importance that the Government attach to such courses and the need to encourage entry into the professions to which they lead. For example, fees are paid for medical students in their fifth and sixth years of study. They also receive means-tested national health service bursaries for those years. We have been over that ground previously in Committee and on Report and I shall not repeat the details of other incentives that we have put in place.
	Evidence shows that the incentives work. We have more teachers with qualified teacher status in our schools now than at any time since 1984. Applications to medical schools in the United Kingdom have increased dramatically since 1998, as has the total number of students who study medical courses. Places on veterinary science courses are heavily over-subscribed.
	The amendment would create curious anomalies. I shall give two examples. Students who repeat a year, perhaps because they failed parts of their course, would effectively be excused from paying a fee for the extra year. That would be unfair. Let us consider students on sandwich courses, whereby they spend a year out, often in paid employment in industry. They are charged only a half-rate fee in the year out because they get less from their institution but the amendment would give them a free year as well as the reduced-rate sandwich year.

Tim Boswell: As time presses, and without prejudice to the general arguments that we had in Committee on policy, but in the real world where the Government can sometimes get their way even if we do not believe that they should, will the Minister at least undertake to consider, in any brokering with another place, a compromise, which would freeze the commitment beyond year three at the existing fee? That would remove the difficulty of the argument that he has deployed but provide at least a limited income to the university without getting people into racking up additional commitments. That is the genuine concern of everyone who supports the amendment.

Alan Johnson: I never like to be difficult with the hon. Gentleman, but the answer is no. I see no point in considering that proposal at all, but it was a nice try. Neither do I think, incidentally, that the noble Lords would expect me to consider it, particularly after the debate that they had last night about trying to find the funding for this gap.
	I have outlined the key arguments against the amendment, but before I finish, it would be remiss of me not to point out that it is also technically flawed, in that it sets a condition but provides no means of enforcing it. On a more minor note, the term "eligible student" is defined in the student support regulations, not the Bill, so the effect in this context would be ambiguous.
	Lords amendment No. 4 would have a significant effect on future decisions about public spending, and should therefore be rejected on the ground of privilege. It would tie the hands of future Governments and prevent them from determining their spending priorities in the light of the circumstances at the time. We are all concerned with the important issue of funding for higher education, but the amendment goes further than ensuring that the new fee income would be additional, and guarantees that public funding for higher education could never decrease, regardless of the needs of other public services.
	If we were to accept the amendment, we would be setting a strange and dangerous precedent. We could hardly offer such a guarantee for higher education without recognising the needs of schools, hospitals, and other vital public services. This illustrates the traditional argument against hypothecation; the provision would lead us quickly to a position in which every part of the public sector had its own special case for protection.

Lynne Jones: I agree with the arguments that my right hon. Friend has just articulated, but should not the Government have tabled their own amendments to ensure that higher education spending kept up with other increases in public spending, or with the generality of education spending, to ensure the additionality of the fee income over general Government spending?

Alan Johnson: I do not think that we can do that in legislation. We have given an assurance that we would stand by the sector, and the Chancellor gave that assurance again in his Budget speech in March. It would be dangerous to write such restrictions into the Bill. Incidentally, we are starting a very interesting debate with Universities UK about how better to define the unit of funding to provide greater clarity and a better understanding of how this all works. I do not think that there is a legislative solution here, and it is certainly not the one that my hon. Friend suggests.
	Under the terms of the amendment, there would ultimately be no flexibility at all for the Government to determine their spending priorities, and a dangerous precedent would be set. Even if there were major and significant financial pressures on this Government or a future Government, the effect of this amendment would be that higher education would have to be protected above all other priorities. That cannot be right.
	Earlier debates in the other place also touched on some of the practical difficulties inherent in the amendment, including potential unintended consequences. For example, the amendment refers to the average funding over the previous three years. That would mean that no sensible Government would ever seek to provide a one-off injection of funding to meet some perceived need, because that would increase the average and could therefore be unsustainable in the future. The result would be that the funding would be kept at the lowest level permissible under the legislation, irrespective of whether additional funding might have been available in any one year. So the amendment would serve only to work against higher education's interests.
	To summarise, the first of the amendments should be rejected on the ground that it would deprive universities of funding, and the second should be rejected on the ground of privilege, in that it would tie the hands of any future Government in making decisions on expenditure. I hope, therefore, that the House will join me in rejecting both of the Lords amendments.

Chris Grayling: We have reached two extremely important parts of the debate and I listened carefully to the Minister's comments. First, Lords amendment No. 4 comes down to the question of trust: do we trust the Government when they say that the money raised from fees will go to universities and will not simply be used by the Treasury as a stealth tax? Secondly, Lords amendment No. 2 deals with concerns about the impact of the proposals on key groups of students doing courses longer than the conventional three years.
	I shall start with Lords amendment No. 4. We know that in 1998 student fees were introduced, so the Government told us, as a way to get more money into universities, but despite the Minister's claims to the contrary in Committee, the reality is that the Government clawed back all the money raised in fees by cutting the money they spent in real terms on universities. How do we know this for sure? Because it is here in black and white in the Department's own report, which we need to consider.
	Fees were introduced late in the 1998–99 financial year. In that financial year, real-terms funding per student was £5,160. The following year—the figure includes the £1,000 of student contributions—it had fallen to £5,110. So it is absolutely clear in black and white that the money was clawed back. Incidentally, the amount that the Government spend per student is still lower in real terms than at that time and has been increased only courtesy of the student contributions. The Government are contributing less per student than when they took office and less than was contributed by the last Conservative Government.

Anne Campbell: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that when the last Conservative Government left office their spending plans for the following two years involved a reduction in that unit cost for university students of 6 per cent. each year? That is what this Government inherited when they took office in 1997. Obviously, they had to put some of that money back, and do so through the introduction of fees.

Chris Grayling: I am mystified by the Government's pride in following Conservative policies for the first two years of their term of office, particularly when the former Conservative Chancellor said that he would not have followed them as rigidly.
	Given all that, it is hardly surprising that there is a little scepticism about what the Government plan to do, particularly when the cost of their proposals is so great for the taxpayer. Taking their own figures from the regulatory impact assessment, the amount that they will have to spend each year in the total student support package to introduce the new system is £1.1 billion. The estimated extra revenue to the universities over and above what they get at the moment, again according to the Government's own figures, is £900 million. It would be cheaper to stay where we are and for the Government to write a cheque to the universities.
	Why on earth would the Government go through all the political grief of the past few months? Their majority was almost destroyed in the vote on Second Reading, there has been huge unrest, they nearly lost a flagship Bill—which would have entailed a great deal of embarrassment—and lasting damage has been done to their relations with many of their Back Benchers.
	Also, huge damage has been done to the Labour party on campuses. I have been around many universities in the last few months. Members should try to find an active Labour party student branch on campus these days. They would find active Conservative branches, and in a few places they would find active Lib Dem branches, but they would never find an active Labour branch. That has disappeared—it is an extinct species.
	Why do all this when it would have been cheaper to write a cheque to the universities? The truth is that many in the university sector believe it to be a precursor to another clawback. That is the only way in which these proposals make economic sense.

Anne Campbell: To put the hon. Gentleman right, there is an active branch of Labour students at Cambridge university, the president of which is a young lady called Jane Jacks. I thought he might like to know that.

Chris Grayling: I commend the hon. Lady. It is clear that her stand against the Bill, although perhaps not as complete as that of some of her colleagues, has encouraged those in her own university town to continue to back her. I doubt, however, that they would express support for the Government's policies. I might disappoint her by saying that if she visits many other universities she will find that many of her colleagues are not as fortunate as she.
	Why would the Government do all this? Clearly, there is a real fear in the university sector that it is a precursor to a clawback. Indeed, the Association of University Teachers has rightly pointed out that back in 1998, when fees were introduced, the issue of a clawback was raised. The Lords passed an amendment then that did very much the same as the amendment that we are considering today. Ministers at the time said that it was not needed, and that they would not accept it. What happened? They clawed it back. All that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done is to guarantee funding until 2007–08, which is well before the full impact of tuition fees is even fed through to the universities. The Minister cannot give a commitment beyond that. He could do if he accepted this amendment, but the reality is that people in the university sector are not confident that the same will not happen again.

Phil Willis: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. In terms of belief and credibility, throughout Second Reading and in Committee, and throughout Second Reading in the other place, its Committee stage, Report and Third Reading, the Conservative party never once said how it would fund the proposals to get rid of tuition fees and top-up fees and to sustain the level of spending predicted by this Government. We now hear that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) will follow Labour's spending plans for the first two years of a Conservative Government, were such a thing to take place. I will support this Lords amendment, but whence would the Conservative party get the resources to meet the pledges that it has made in this House and to the student body?

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman is right to be interested, and I am delighted that he is. He will have to wait a little bit longer. We in the Conservative party believe that we should get our policies right and have them stick until the general election, and not have to change them a few months later, as his party did in relation to the £100 reduction in council tax. We will get it right, and we will publish our plans when we are ready.
	The other part of this debate is equally important. The practical consequences for individual students of what the Government are doing will be extremely severe. Those students who do four, five or six-year courses, many of whom enter professions that are not particularly well paid, will see a huge increase in the burden of cost that they will bear as a result of the Government's measures. The Government have totally failed to understand the impact of their proposals on those key professionals, who are the real losers as a result of this change, and the ones who will really feel the extra costs. Those people will be put off pursuing the professions in which this country needs people.
	It is extremely revealing. The Government have admitted this afternoon that this amendment could cost £180 million. We know that the total extra amount that will be raised from top-up fees is £900 million. What the Government are saying is that £1 in every £5—20 per cent. of the extra cost of these measures—is being levied from those who already bear the highest cost from being at university. That is not acceptable.
	The Minister made a point about students missing a year. Let me tell him about the student to whom I talked recently who had to give up in the middle of her second year because her father was dying of cancer, and who therefore missed the year. Subsequently, she came back to finish her university course, and was deeply frustrated and bitter that she not only had to pay the fees for the year that she had missed but the fees for the additional year. Does he honestly believe that it is right and proper that someone who must give up their course temporarily in such a situation must pay an extra year's fees in order to complete it? I do not think that that is acceptable.

James Clappison: May I respectfully invite my hon. Friend to examine some of the evidence received by the Constitutional Affairs Committee from the legal profession about what it thinks the impact of tuition fees will be? It relates to the decisions of those who enter the profession as to what branch of the profession they choose and what sort of work that they do. In particular, it relates to the effect on the numbers who come into the profession to undertake legal aid work, which is notoriously poorly paid. The fear is that the able students entering the profession will choose increasingly to do highly paid work in City firms, and big commercial work, as opposed to representing people on lower incomes through legal aid work.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes an important and powerful point. It is replicated by another important profession—vets. As the Minister said, vets do not get any support from the Government. The proposals have caused great anxiety in the veterinary profession. He will be aware that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons expressed great concern about the White Paper. It said that it would
	"deter many young people from applying to study veterinary medicine in the future and deter graduates from entering careers in areas of greatest public interest where salaries are lowest, i.e. in veterinary research, in farm and livestock animal practice, and from rural-based practices in general."
	The Minister will remember how serious the shortage of public sector vets was during the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, and how much more difficult it made the task of combating the disease. How will levying higher fees over six years on young vets attract more people into key public sector roles in the veterinary profession? It is madness.
	The British Veterinary Association recently carried out a survey on the costs today of going through a six-year course. The study found that 45 per cent. of current veterinary students would seriously have reconsidered even starting had they known how much debt was involved. The report on the study said:
	"This is very bad news for the profession and should cause great concern to the Government but nobody seems to be paying attention."
	The Royal Institute of British Architects published figures recently estimating average debts of £57,000 if tuition fees at the Government's planned level are introduced. Top-up fees of £3,000 a year, living costs of £6,000 or £7,000, particularly in London, multiplied over a six-year course, comfortably add up to £50,000 or £60,000. That is a massive increase on the previous estimate by the RIBA 18 months ago and represents a powerful deterrent to those wishing to enter the architecture profession. I encourage the Minister to look at the letter in Building earlier this year from a consultant in Kent, which states:
	"I want to express my outrage at the government's proposal to increase tuition fees to undergraduates.
	With our industry failing to attract and retain bright young graduates, we will be forced to look abroad to find our future leaders.
	Consultancies are already faced with a chronic skills shortage and should the government steamroller this proposal through, it will lead to nothing short of an industry meltdown."
	How will we find the architects that we need in both the public and private sectors if young architects are deterred through the sheer weight of debt?
	The Minister mentioned the medical profession. I commend to him the communication that was sent to all of us by the chairman of the British Medical Association's medical students committee. He said not only that he was concerned about the impact of higher debt on doctors but that he believed that the Government's measures would have a significant adverse effect, as has been mentioned, on efforts to bring people from all backgrounds into the medical profession.
	I give the Minister further food for thought. I suspect that he has not really thought about this properly. It was articulated well by Lord Campbell-Savours in the other place. Many of those who do the Government's foundation degrees, a two-year course, and follow through into higher education to finish that experience will go beyond the three years. They will be faced with three, four or five years of costs. The Minister says that he is planning to widen participation. Is it really his intention that those people should end up paying fees over a prolonged period? If he does not believe that will happen, he should just talk to the vice-chancellors of some of the universities offering foundation courses. He will be surprised at the fees that they are planning to charge after the autumn of 2006.
	The higher education sector does not trust the Government not to claw the money back, and the professions are profoundly anxious about the impact of the Government's proposals on their opportunity to recruit. Both the amendments drive to the heart of those concerns. They deserve the support of the House and it is to the discredit of the Government that they are so determined to stand against them.

Phil Willis: These are the two key amendments from the other place. They go to the heart of the Bill and the principles behind it. The Liberal Democrats accept that the Minister and Baroness Ashton have approached the whole Bill with much sensitivity and attempted to address all the main issues. I do not believe that they have won the argument on fees, and we will continue to fight that case, including at the next general election, but it is not a case for today.
	The other principle relating to the Bill is that now that the votes on fees in this House and another place have been won, we want to guarantee that the money coming from those fees is additional. The whole principle behind Lords amendment No. 4 is to seek to guarantee additionality. There is no doubt that in another place, Lord Phillips of Sudbury and my noble Friend Baroness Sharp, who did tremendous work on our behalf in the House of Lords, supported by Lord Dearing—who is certainly not a lightweight in these matters, having produced the Dearing report back in 1997—Baroness Warwick, the chief executive of Universities UK, Lord Ricks, and Lord Campbell-Savours all supported the simple principle that additionality must be written in as part and parcel of the legislation.
	Why did those peers do that? Why did all those people, with their backgrounds and expertise, all—perhaps with the exception of my noble Friend Baroness Sharp—great supporters of the Government in their own ways, say that we had to have that written into the legislation? That is not simply because we do not believe the Government, although the Bill is a betrayal of the 2001 manifesto. There is a belief that the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 was also a betrayal of the statements made by the then Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). He promised at that time that the money from tuition fees would be additional income to our universities. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) was absolutely right to say that we have seen not only what is really replacement funding through fees, over the years from 1998 to 2002–03, but a reduction in the percentage of GDP that the state spends on higher education. Had it not been for the introduction of tuition fees in 1998, we would have seen our universities suffer worse cuts than the 6 per cent. cuts that the Conservatives predicted when they left office. Lords amendment No. 4 asks the Government to make it clear that they mean what they say, by being prepared to include that in the Bill.
	Why does the Minister persist in the ludicrous argument that he cannot bind a future Government to the spending commitments? This Bill's implications start with a future Government—they are likely to start after the general election in 2005, so these measures will bind a future Government, future generations of students and future universities into those spending commitments.

Alan Howarth: The hon. Gentleman's position is an assault on the authority of this House, and the arguments that his party and the Conservative party have put forward are arguments to undermine the authority of this House on the occasions in the parliamentary calendar when we vote on estimates. We have the Government's word that the funding will be additional. Of course it is up to the House of Commons to monitor that, but we have the opportunity in our conventional procedures, year by year, to vote on estimates and to hold the Government to account in that respect.

Phil Willis: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but in this year's Budget speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
	"The settlement will maintain the level of real-terms student funding per head, and ensure that universities receive in full the benefit of additional revenue from the Government's higher education reforms."—[Official Report, 17 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 335.]
	That is a clear statement by the Chancellor that not only will funding be maintained in real terms but the money that the Bill will bring in will be additional resources. Why cannot the Government translate that into a simple clause in the Bill to guarantee it? That is all we are asking for, and all that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, representing the Conservative party, is asking for. That is the principle behind the amendment.
	Lords amendment No. 2 deals with the issue of the fourth year. I listened to the debate on Third Reading yesterday in the other place. The Minister is right that the issue of who should pay for the additional resourcing—whether it be £130 million or £180 million—is relevant. I believe that we have the right to know where the resources stipulated in amendments should come from. Clearly, there are two ways of paying: either through the Higher Education Funding Council or by the universities themselves.
	Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have continually claimed that the introduction of differential or top-up fees will give universities the flexibility to be able to meet their differing circumstances. The Secretary of State, who is now in his place, said when the White Paper was issued last year, that Departments such as the Home Office, the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills would engage with the Bill to provide the bursaries and support that students studying beyond three years would require. Yet as the Bill has progressed, we have heard absolutely nothing about that. Lords amendment No. 2 is simply an attempt to make the Government put into practice what they promised in the White Paper and during the Bill's passage. In tonight's vote, I hope that both Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 4 will be supported and the Government's opposition to them rejected.

Alan Johnson: I should like to respond briefly to the main points.
	The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) sometimes damages his own case by the use of hyperbole. There was an argument somewhere, but it was so over-egged that it did not come across. One of the main problems with his position was pointed out in an intervention by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). Her Majesty's official Opposition have no solution to the higher education funding problem, whereas the Liberal Democrats at least have a policy—that the funding should be provided by the taxpayer—and have stuck to it.
	It seems that the Conservatives are now taking us back to an endowments policy. That should, perhaps, cheer us up. When the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) was the shadow education spokesman, he welcomed Dearing and supported absolutely what he said. We are now introducing Dearing's recommendations. Then the Conservative policy changed to endowments, which the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) described as a "fantasy" rather than a "policy". In the 2001 election, the Conservatives stood on the basis of the endowments policy. Then, however, the position changed and we were told that we needed to cut the number of students attending university. Now that we are going back to endowments, surely the next step should be to go back to supporting Dearing and therefore the principles contained in the Bill. It should be a happy day for us today.
	The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell also said—we have heard it before—that instead of going through all this process, we might as well hand over the £1 billion to the universities. If we did that, it would mean no abolition of up-front fees, no 25-year cut-off point for repaying loans, no maintenance grant—an expanded maintenance grant is an important part of the debate—no increase to the student loan for living costs and no independent sustainable source of income for universities in the long term. Once again, the total funding would depend on the taxpayer. Dearing's national committee of inquiry, set up by the Conservatives when they were in power, eloquently expressed the reason why higher education had run into the funding gap—because it depended constantly on the taxpayer and there were other priorities.
	I turn now to the point raised by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. We can argue all we like about 1998, but the truth is that the Conservative Government proposed a funding cut of 6 per cent. Dearing recommended a cut of 1 per cent. We were able to effect a 1 per cent. reduction, but the introduction of fees did not reduce the funding provided by the taxpayer.
	I therefore ask the House to reject Lords amendment No. 2, and Lords amendment No. 4, which breaches privilege.

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings, Madam Deputy Speaker put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
	The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 194.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 2.
	Motion made and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Derek Twigg.]
	The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 187.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.
	Madam Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
	Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 8, 13, 9 to 12, 14, 1, 21 and 25 to 27 agreed to.
	Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 2, 4, 5, 15 to 17 and 19 to the Bill: Chris Grayling, Alan Johnson, Mr. Bob Laxton, Derek Twigg and Mr. Phil Willis to be members of the Committee; Alan Johnson to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Derek Twigg.]
	To withdraw immediately.
	Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Criminal Law

That the draft Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (Amendment) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 12th May, be approved.—[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I propose to put together the Questions on the two motions on Government resources and accounts.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Government Resources and Accounts

That the draft Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Audit of Health Service Bodies) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.
	That the draft Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Audit of Public Bodies) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.—[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Urban Development

That the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 2004, dated 6th May, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th May, be approved.—[Mr. Ainger.]
	The House divided: Ayes 294, Noes 163.

Question accordingly agreed to.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Marketing of Maize Genetically Modified for Glyphosate Tolerance

That this House takes note of European Union Document No.8235/04, draft Council Decision concerning the placing on the market, in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC, of a maize product (Zea mays L Line NK603) genetically modified for glyphosate tolerance; and supports the Government's view that Monsanto's NK603 maize, to be used as any other maize but excluding cultivation, meets the necessary requirements for authorisation under Directive 2001/18/EC.—[Mr. Ainger.]
	The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 66.

Question accordingly agreed to.

John Whittingdale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. When the motion on which the House has just divided was debated in European Standing Committee A on Monday, I made it clear that the official Opposition had some concerns about the motion, but that we would not oppose it. However, not only did the Liberal Democrats not oppose the motion then, but no Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament attended the Committee. Is it in order for the Liberal Democrats to divide the House when they could not even be bothered to turn up when the matter was debated?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair—[Interruption.] Order. It is much more a matter for debate. How Members vote this evening is entirely a matter for them, but the point that the hon. Gentleman has made is obviously on the record.

PETITIONS
	 — 
	Shanklin Jobcentre

Andrew Turner: This is a petition of 536 residents of the Isle of Wight and others. It was organised by Geoff Lumley and Val Urquhart, and it states:
	The petition of residents of the Isle of Wight and others, declares that Shanklin Jobcentre provides a valuable public service to employers and the local community of all ages and circumstances; that any disabled access problems can be addressed by 'reasonable adjustments' to the building; that it is unreasonable to expect residents of the south east Wight area, many with limited means and generally reliant on public transport, to have to travel to Ryde and Newport to access Jobcentre Plus services; but notes that the District Manager for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight Jobcentre Plus has declared the intention to close Shanklin Jobcentre in October 2004.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions do all in his power to ensure that the services currently available in Shanklin Jobcentre remain, either by reasonable adjustments being made to the existing building or alternative suitable accommodation being identified in Shanklin or the surrounding area.
	To lie upon the Table.

King George III

Jim Knight: I have been asked by my constituent Mr. Martin Ball of 18 Cunningham close, Weymouth, to present this petition to the House.
	These are his words:
	The petition of Martin Ball
	Declares that the History of England appears to have been re-written. Academic institutions, including BBC History, which the Country is required to fund, seem to be preventing official study of the authentic memoirs of King George III, his sixth Seal and his real life and times.
	The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons establish an inquiry into the allegation that to all intents and purposes an Englishman may not study this chapter of the History of his own country.
	And the Petitioner remains, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

TURKEY (EU ACCESSION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]

Wayne David: On 1 May, the European Union concluded a successful phase in its development when 10 new countries joined, but another phase in the enlargement process is already before us. It is to be hoped that in 2007 Romania and Bulgaria will be able to join the EU, and at the weekend European summit the green light was given for negotiations with Croatia on joining the EU to begin early in 2005. In December, the European Council will consider whether to give the green light to Turkey to start its negotiations for entry.
	It is worth noting that the summit's presidency conclusions state:
	"The Union reaffirms its commitment that if the European Council decides in December 2004, on the basis of a report and recommendation from the Commission, that Turkey fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria, the EU will open accession negotiations with Turkey without delay."
	That point was made after several positive points about how Turkey had made real progress over the last few years on its application for membership. I want to emphasise some things that have been happening in Turkey over the last 18 months to two years.
	In May this year, we saw a number of extremely important constitutional reforms adopted. Turkey has also agreed to reassess cases found unfair by the European Court of Human Rights, and to dismantle state security courts. In addition, the death penalty in the country has been abolished, and general moves are being made to create an independent judicial service.
	Moreover, and very importantly, the influence of the army is clearly diminishing in the country. In May this year, I and two parliamentary colleagues visited Turkey, and saw at first hand tangible changes taking place. Many progressives whom we met saw the army not as a threat to a developing democracy in the country but as an instrument that helps that process gather momentum, while ensuring that Muslim fundamentalism is not a threat to democracy. That case can be overstated, but nevertheless, the influence of the army is not what it was, and clearly, it has diminished significantly compared with what it was just a few years ago.
	Some of the most impressive changes in the country have occurred with regard to the Kurdish minority. Books about the Kurdish insurgency are now permitted in the country, and deaths of left-wing activists and Kurdish activists are very much a thing of the past. We are seeing permission given for the establishment of Kurdish private language courses, and laws restricting freedom of expression have been repealed. The progress in that regard was well stated by The Guardian, which reported on 21 June that
	"June 9 was a splendid day for Turkey's 12 million-odd Kurds".
	By that, it meant that on that day, state-run Turkish television transmitted the first ever broadcast in the most widely spoken Kurdish dialect, Kurmandji. That was of enormous symbolic importance to the Kurdish minority. Indeed, earlier today, I spoke to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who cited a Kurd to whom she had spoken who had sold his only cow so that he could buy a satellite dish to enable him to watch that broadcast.
	On that same day, only hours later, a Turkish appeal court released Leyla Zana, the country's most famous female politician. Along with her, three other Kurdish colleagues were released who had been in prison for the previous 10 years. Leyla Zana walked free pending an appeal on 8 July. After her release, she was mobbed by an ecstatic crowd, and commentators right across the country commented that the end of a long national conflict over state recognition of Kurdish culture and language rights was taking place. Indeed, Leyla Zana said:
	"I believe that a new period has started in this country, and a new page is opened".
	I believe that that is true. Only yesterday, the Council of Europe passed two significant resolutions. In one of them, it lifted Turkey out of the watch list, under which it has been for a number of years, and instead placed Turkey on the post-monitoring list. As a spokesman for the Strasbourg-based Council of Europe said:
	"Turkey has achieved more reforms in a little over two years than in the previous decade. Given the progress achieved since 2001, the assembly is confident that the Turkish authorities will apply and consolidate the reforms."
	That said, there is, clearly, much more to be done. Only the other day, Amnesty International wrote to me pointing out that although the situation in Turkey is undoubtedly improving, ill treatment of detainees in police custody persists, and legally prescribed detention procedures are sometimes not adhered to. For example, the right to immediate access to legal counsel or the right to have next of kin informed of the detention are not always honoured. Similarly, Amnesty pointed out that there is still excessive use of force in the policing of demonstrations, continuing brutality against detainees, and the number of prosecutions against alleged perpetrators is worrying low. Amnesty also believes that although progress has been made, there are still articles in the Turkish penal code that restrict freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, and, it is alleged, human rights activists still suffer intimidation and threats.
	Just a few days ago, Amnesty International published a new report entitled, "Turkey: Women confronting family violence." It contains a detailed and graphic description of violence against women in Turkey. It explains how there is a "culture" of violence in Turkish life placing women in double jeopardy—they are victims of domestic violence but they are also denied effective access to justice. Amnesty International says that, at the same time, support for the revised penal code is sometimes more apparent than real and that the reform process must be given more momentum. Significantly, it mentions that the crucial issue is implementation, which I noted on my visit to Turkey. Although we can point to gender equality in the constitution, in reality, it is a long way from being put into effect.
	Hon. Members have to be honest. There must be long-lasting and in-depth changes in Turkish society. It is a question not simply of changing the constitution and implementing laws—there must be an attitudinal change in society and a cultural change. That will undoubtedly take many years.
	Real reforms are taking place but there is still much to do. The crucial question that we must ask is: how can we best support the process of change in Turkey? I believe that the best way is for a firm date to be given by the Council in December for the start of negotiations on Turkish membership of the European Union.
	When we look at the recent past, we must be frank with ourselves. A few weeks ago, we admitted 10 new countries to the European Union. There was a big question mark over whether Slovakia met all the Copenhagen criteria when negotiations began on its membership of the EU. The situation in Turkey compares very favourably with the situation in Slovakia only a short time ago.

John Lyons: Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is still deep despair about the 1,500 people who are missing in Cyprus since the Turkish occupation? That is a genuine issue. The United Nations has tried over the years to make progress but, often, Turkey has resisted that. Will he take on board that that is a serious issue, as is the occupation of Cyprus? It will be a major problem in the weeks and months ahead.

Wayne David: I take the point that my hon. Friend makes. I intend to make specific reference to Cyprus later and that is part of the equation that we must consider.
	Turkey is in the process of radical and profound change and a start date for negotiations will give impetus to that programme of change. We need to remember that Turkey has been helpful with regard to what has happened in Cyprus over the past few months. Indeed, there has been a big attitudinal change by the Turkish authorities with regard to the unification of the island. We are all greatly disappointed that, although, on 1 May, Cyprus joined the EU, there has been a suspension of the acquis communautaire for the northern part of the island because of the rejection of the Annan plan by the Greek Cypriots in the south of the island. Although, as my hon. Friend pointed out, there have been and still are some difficulties with regard to aspects of what is still technically, I suppose, the Turkish occupation of the northern part of Cyprus, there has been a sea change in the attitude of the Turkish Government in Ankara in trying to bring about a peaceful reunification of the island. It is very significant that the Turkish Cypriots voted overwhelmingly in favour of the proposed settlement, which the Government of our country supported, and which also had the support of the Ankara Government.

David Drew: The problem is with perceptions rather than reality, but because of those perceptions, until the Greek Cypriots believe that there is movement in the north of the island—which can be brought about only by pressure from mainland Turkey—they are unlikely to agree to any settlement, whether that be Annan or post-Annan. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Wayne David: I do not want to be sidetracked into a debate on the complexities of the Cyprus situation. However, there has been a real change in the attitude of the Turkish Government to the issue, and the amount of change that we have seen has taken people by surprise. There is no doubt in my mind that the change that we have seen has been positive and genuine. I hope that that process will continue. Despite the present impediment in respect of Cyprus, I am nevertheless optimistic that some sort of rapprochement will be achieved in the not-too-distant future.
	The European Commission will present its report on Turkey's application for membership and its adherence to the Copenhagen criteria, I believe in October. I very much hope that the report will be positive, and will pave the way for a full debate in the European Council in December, following which the Council will decide unanimously, as it has to, that a starting date will be given for negotiation of Turkish membership of the EU.
	I must express some concern, however, about the attitude of one or two member states of the European Union. I cite in particular France and Austria. One sometimes gets the feeling that human rights are almost an excuse for not allowing into the European Union a non-Christian, predominantly Muslim, country. We must be clear about what our vision of the European Union is. My idea of Europe is not based on textbook geography, nor is it based on religious exclusivity or ethnic purity. Our vision of Europe should be based on common values such as democracy, the rule of law, respect for others, cultural diversity and freedom.
	Turkey is undoubtedly an important country. It is a regional power, and it bridges east and west. It is a predominantly Muslim country, but it is also a secular state, and it is in the process of moving towards full democracy, modern values and an inclusive society. We in the United Kingdom should welcome Turkey's application for membership of the EU and, with open arms, its eventual membership. We should do everything that we can to encourage our European partners to give a date for negotiations to begin. For Turkey to join the European Union would be in Turkey's interests, but it would also be to the benefit of the United Kingdom, and if Turkey were eventually able to join the European Union, it would be to the benefit of Europe as a whole.

Denis MacShane: I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) for raising this important issue at such a crucial time. He has talked about the need for attitudinal and cultural change, and that is under way in Turkey. Equally, I think that we need an attitudinal and cultural change among some of us and our fellow Europeans in our approach to Turkey.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the positive resolutions adopted by the Council of Europe, and that allows me to put on record what I am sure is the satisfaction of the entire House at the election of our right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) as the new secretary-general of the Council of Europe. It is a signal honour for the House of Commons that one of our own has been chosen for that very important European post. It is a tribute to the my right hon. Friend's dedicated and tireless work in linking the values of the British House of Commons with those of fellow parliamentarians from all the member states of the Council of Europe, which I remind the House goes well beyond membership of the European Union. I know that my right hon. Friend will be an outstanding servant of the European cause and we all wish him well in his new work.
	In December, European leaders—that is to say, leaders of the European Union—will decide whether to start accession negotiations with Turkey. It is a decision of enormous significance not just for Turkey, but for the UK and our European partners.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly has long been a staunch advocate of EU enlargement and I pay tribute to his work in the House and previously when he was an MEP, serving the European Parliament with such distinction. He has continued to argue in a rational, sane, common-sense, deeply committed and even passionate Welsh way for the success of the giant project that we are embarked upon, which is called making a success of the EU. I personally agree very much with him that, provided that all the criteria are met, a positive vote for Turkey is an essential part of making our EU grow, making our EU look outwards not inwards, and making our EU embrace the challenge of the great Turkish tradition of Islamic democracy.
	Enlargement is one of the priorities of both the UK and the EU. The present enlargement to include the 10 member states that have just come in has been one of our greatest policy successes. It has contributed hugely to our collective security and prosperity and it brings to an end the cold war division of Europe. My hon. Friend's debates on enlargement have become almost an annual fixture in our calendar, so it is good to see that he, like the Government, recognises that enlargement did not end on 1 May. It is vital that the EU continues to spread peace, prosperity and stability across our continent by offering the prospect of membership to those who are willing to adhere to EU standards and values.
	The UK has long supported Turkey's EU membership. I am delighted that this position commands support on both sides of the House. I repeat the tributes that I regularly pay to my opposite number, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, who are both staunch advocates of Turkey's joining the EU. However, I find it remarkable that the principal Opposition party should be so strongly in favour of EU membership for others, when so many Conservative Members—including the senior leadership figures—are not fully committed to our own membership or making a success of the EU under its new constitutional treaty.
	Discussions with other European countries are important. My hon. Friend mentioned Austria and France, but might also have mentioned Germany, where politicians on the right—the sister parties of our Conservative party—do not have such a positive view of Turkey. I hope that one day we will see the great internationalist traditions of the Conservative party come back to their natural home and that the Conservatives will enter into a full political relationship with their sister parties in Europe. I hope that they will then argue in favour of Turkey and all the other positive things that we want the EU to do. Nevertheless, I am grateful for their support and there is no party political divide in this House on the issue of Turkish membership of the EU.
	The question then arises as to why we are such strong supporters of Turkey's EU membership. It is because we are convinced that it would be good for the UK, good for the EU and good for Turkey. The arguments centre on security, prosperity and credibility.
	I shall deal first with security and stability. The decision in December provides a real opportunity to sustain the momentum of reform in Turkey and to entrench the rule of law and respect for human rights. A stable, democratic Turkey anchored in the EU would enhance Europe's security. I hardly need remind the House of Turkey's position at the intersection of three areas of strategic importance—the Balkans, the middle east and the Caucasus—or of its burgeoning role as a key transit country for the oil and gas supplies so essential to us all.
	Yet Turkey's strategic importance goes beyond geography. Its role as a link between Europe and the Muslim world is key. It is key in refuting spurious, but widely believed, arguments about a clash of civilisations, in rebutting arguments that the EU is a Christian club, and in demonstrating to Muslim countries—and our own populations—that religious tolerance is an essential part of European life.
	Many hon. Members have substantial Muslim communities in their constituencies. Those people are British citizens who worship in their own faith, and they are an important part of the new British network of communities. The 15 million European Muslims who live in EU countries are also a growing and important part of the new EU. It is vital that we do not define Europe as belonging to any one religion.
	Recent events have shown all too painfully that Europe cannot maintain its security by putting up walls around itself. We need to export stability beyond our region. It is no help to Britain to have poor neighbours, and it is no use to the EU to keep at bay a country that can play a vital part in extending the positive message of EU membership to its own people and—in due time and if it becomes a member—beyond its borders. Turkey can play an important role in achieving that.
	Turkey has long been a steadfast ally in tackling the security threats that we face. Most recently, it has been our ally in opposing terrorism. Many more Turks than British citizens were hurt in last year's Istanbul bombings. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the mayor of Istanbul, who worked swiftly and efficiently to find and bring to trial the people who perpetrated the bombings. The alliance between Britain and Turkey in dealing with the terrorist threat is second to none.
	The NATO Istanbul summit at the end of this month is due recognition for Turkey's commitment to Europe's security interests, demonstrated most recently in Afghanistan. Turkey could and would make a significant contribution to the EU's growing security capabilities.
	The second argument for Turkey's EU membership is economic. Those who oppose Turkey's membership often claim that Turkey will be an economic burden on the EU. I disagree. Turkey is a country of enormous economic potential. It has a youthful market of 70 million people, which in turn offers links to new markets in the middle east, the Caucasus and central Asia.
	Turkey's economy is growing fast. The prospect of EU membership and the macro-economic stability that that will encourage should ensure that that continues. If so, Turkey will be a very different place in the second decade of this new century. A positive decision in December will encourage international investment to pour into the country, and trade to flourish.
	We want a rich Turkey with a growing middle class. We want Turkey's workers to feel that they have a future in their country, and that they can earn a decent wage and provide a home for their families. That has to be in the economic interests of all EU countries—and in particular of the UK, with our open trade traditions.
	If we are to maximise the benefits of free trade and reach out to new markets, we must integrate Turkey more fully into Europe. Trade between the UK and Turkey now tops £4 billion and is increasing at an annual rate of 35 per cent. British business men are keen to follow in the footsteps of the British Levantine trading families: they have invested around £2 billion in Turkey, which includes ventures by Cadbury Schweppes, the HSBC bank and Tesco.
	The most common British visitors to Turkey are not the deal makers but the sun seekers, with around 1 million tourists visiting annually. Some 40,000 Brits have bought second homes in Turkey as the Mediterranean and Aegean coastline there begins to look more like that of Andalucia and the other great coastlines of Mediterranean Spain, which have done so well economically over the past 40 years thanks to tourism from Britain. Indeed, scores of thousands of British people have taken holidays or made permanent homes there.
	I visited Izmir in January, when I went to the university and found something that would put most other universities in Europe to shame. The high-level campus is attracting back professors in different disciplines from all over Europe and the United States who now want to make Turkey a successful new European country. The classes and seminars were in English, and I met young men and women who long to see Europe open its doors to Turkey.
	The final argument in support of Turkey's EU membership is credibility. Turkey must be treated as any other candidate country. Turkey was first offered the perspective of future membership in 1963, with the signature of its association agreement. Britain, of course, was not then a member, and the firmest advocate of that agreement was General de Gaulle. I hope that his political successors in France and the other founding countries of the European Community hark back to his vision of a Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals, which must include Turkey.
	Thirty-three years later, the question of Turkish eligibility was confirmed at Helsinki, when the EU declared that Turkey was
	"a candidate state destined to join the Union".
	The promise was further reinforced at Copenhagen in 2002, when the European Council agreed that if Turkey met the Copenhagen political criteria, it would start accession negotiations without delay. It would be immensely damaging to the EU's credibility if we now reneged on those explicit promises. The EU must move forward. To say no to Turkey, having made those commitments, and provided that the criteria are met, would send a negative message around the world about the EU's credibility.
	There are some who argue that Turkey is not European, historically, culturally or geographically. I think they do not know their history, their culture or their geography. Turkey's history is Europe's history. From Ephesus to Byzantium, from St. George, who many say was an Anatolian—[Interruption.] I am terribly sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker; that should not have happened.
	Many say that St. George was an Anatolian, although others believe he came from Dalmatia. From those things, and from the pleasures of UEFA football and the Eurovision song contest, we have a shared history and cultural inheritance. The very name Europe comes from the fair maiden Europa, who was carried off to what were then the shores of Asia minor, and are now Turkey, to be, in what I think is the technical term, ravished. We have all been enjoying the recent film of the great battles around Troy: when Homer wrote his epic about that, he clearly considered that it was part of Mediterranean civilisation.
	Some people say that Turkey is part of Asia. Yet its Mediterranean coastline matches the longest of the EU member states. Turkey actually lies west of Cyprus, which is now an EU member state.
	The real answer to that question is the one that I gave to Mr. Valerie Giscard d'Estaing, the former French President, in a debate on French television earlier this year. He advanced the view that Turkey was not geographically or culturally part of Europe, but the whole point of the EU, the reason for its foundation—its raison d'être, to use the language of Mr. Giscard d'Estaing—was to overcome differences in culture, language and geography, through the spread of shared values and a common purpose. Spurious arguments over geography are not what really matters. Anybody who can define Istanbul—Constantinople, as some of us still occasionally like to call it—as anything other than a cradle city of European civilisation knows neither history nor culture. What really matters is whether Turkey shares the same values and aspirations as the rest of the EU. I am convinced that its leadership does, and with the obligations to meet EU norms and values implicit in accepting the responsibility of seeking to become an EU member state, the Turkish nation will embark on its second great modernisation after that of Ataturk.
	Of course, Turkey must deliver its side of the bargain. Like any other candidate country, it must fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria, including ensuring respect for democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the protection of minorities. That is happening fast, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly saw when he visited Ankara in May.
	Since the AK party came to power, the Turkish Parliament has passed a plethora of legislation to bring its laws into line with European norms. It has included measures to promote minority rights, to root out torture and incommunicado detention, to abolish the death penalty and to allow civilian participation in the National Security Council. Two developments within the last few weeks have seen the start of non-Turkish language broadcasting and the release, pending appeal, of Leyla Zana and her three colleagues, and that shows just how much has changed.
	The Leyla Zana case is particularly symbolic. The case exposed several problems in Turkey regarding freedom of association, Kurdish suppression and judicial partiality. But as a result of reforms introduced to meet EU standards, the defendants were given the right to a second hearing and now a further appeal. The abolition of the state security courts, anathema to a democratic society, means that the latest appeal will be held in a civilian court. And as Turkey's minorities exercise their new freedoms, so the official mindset, which once felt threatened when parents gave their child a Kurdish name, will fade away.
	The changes in Turkey have been more remarkable for the way they have been achieved. Turkey has not experienced a velvet revolution like much of central and eastern Europe, where old institutions and identities were swept away in an instant. Turkey's reforms have required vision and concerted determination. But what Turkey does share with the post-cold war achievements of eastern Europe is that reform has been driven not simply by a desire to satisfy the demands of the EU, but by an internal determination to give its citizens the quality of life they deserve and demand. Turkish democracy is transforming the country, and in the process proving Turkey's European credentials.
	Turkey still has more to do, as my hon. Friends who have intervened in this debate have pointed out forcibly in respect of Cyprus. Putting legislation on the statute book is one thing, but implementation of those reforms and changing the attitudes throughout society is another. We continue to urge the Turkish Government to do more to achieve that and have been targeting our assistance to that end. That has included training in human rights and European law for the judiciary, and helping draft a new code of conduct for the police.
	We should not allow Turkey to take its foot off the pedal. While on the one hand we must applaud the release of Leyla Zana, on the other, I—as a former president of the National Union of Journalists—must strongly deplore the imprisonment of the journalist Hakan Albayrak of Milli Gazete, on the charge of insulting Ataturk. I sincerely hope that the new Turkish penal code will remove article 159, which refers to
	"insulting the State or its institutions"
	and similar laws, and allow genuine freedom of expression. In Europe, no one should face pressure for saying, writing, or publishing opinions on political, cultural and identity issues. By the time Turkey comes to the finishing line for consideration as an EU candidate member, no journalist, writer or artist should be imprisoned or face police or judicial pressure for expressing views that are normal in EU member states. The laws on defamation must be obeyed and each EU member state has a different approach to journalistic deontology, but no one should face judicial pressure and the threat of imprisonment for just saying, writing or publishing opinions on political and cultural identity issues that are the norm elsewhere in the EU.
	Prime Minister Erdogan and Foreign Minister Gul are powerful and convincing advocates of Turkey's European convictions, but I still believe there is a real lack of awareness in Europe of just how much has changed in Turkey. The Turkish Government need to do more to mobilise human rights organisations, the business community, academics, those on the left of politics in Turkey, trade unionists, journalists and writers, all of whom support opening accession negotiations.
	Turkish civil society should be given the task of speaking for Turkey to civil society in the rest of Europe; that cannot be done by political leaders and diplomats alone. It should remind Europe's sceptics of Leyla Zana's letter to the President of the European Parliament, Pat Cox, written from prison, in which she declared that she would prefer to be a prisoner in a country negotiating EU membership than free in a country barred from the European Union. That is a powerful message about the importance of Turkey's EU perspective.
	In conclusion, I have no doubt that Turkey can and will make an enormous contribution to the EU. It will require many long years of hard negotiation before there is any question of Turkey joining the EU. It was 15 years from the fall of the Berlin wall to the celebrations on 1 May when former countries of the Soviet bloc, some of which had relatively advanced economic, social and cultural potential, joined the EU, so we must be clear that a decision in December will not immediately open a door to the EU. We must be honest with our Turkish friends and say that the negotiations will be hard and the road will be long, but I firmly believe that the final destination of EU membership will be reached if everyone is willing to seize it.
	Turkey can be a strategic partner in helping us to tackle the global security threats we face and enhancing the EU's engagement with the wider region, with a dynamic economy offering new opportunities for trade and investment. I am convinced that if Turkey sustains the momentum of reform, the EU can and should agree in December to start accession negotiations, so I am in complete agreement with the arguments of my hon. Friend.
	We should not let the sceptics stand in the way of Turkey's second great modernisation. The message from the House and from the United Kingdom is that we offer the hand of friendship and solidarity to those who want to lead Turkey on the path of reform and modernisation towards Europe. We should be helping Turkey to move forward to fulfil Ataturk's vision of a European destiny for his great nation.
	I thank my hon. Friend and colleagues for calling the debate, and hope that I can look forward to their continuing support on this critical question. I am grateful to the House for allowing me to place on record the views of the Government and, I think, the majority of the British people, who want to see Turkey join the European Union.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not want to add to the interruption caused by the Minister's mobile phone during his speech, but I must tell him that Mr. Speaker takes a very strong line on these matters, so I suggest that in future the Minister either switches off his phone or, better still, leaves it outside the Chamber.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Six o'clock.